English translation — תזו"מ

Tazria-Metzora<pg>37</pg>

A.

We learned in Masechet Nega'im<sup>1</sup>

: "A groom on whom a lesion appeared, they give him the seven days of the feast, to him and to his house and to his garment,

and likewise on a Festival, they give him all the days of the Festival."

And in the Gemara<sup>2</sup>

a dispute of Tannaim is brought in the source of the law,

in a baraita: "And on the day it appears to him"<sup>3</sup>,

there is a day that you see it and there is a day that you do not see it,

from here they said: a groom in whom a lesion appeared, they give him the seven days of the wedding feast, for him, his household, and his garment,

and likewise on a Festival they give him the seven days of the Festival<sup>4</sup>

the words of Rabbi Yehuda,

Rabbi<sup>5</sup>

says it is not necessary,

for it says<sup>6</sup>

"And the priest shall command and they shall clear the house" — if they wait for him for a matter of permission, all the more so for a matter of commandment<sup>7</sup>

(And the Gemara continues)

What is the difference between them? Abaye said: The manner of exposition is the difference between them. And Rava said: A matter of permission is the difference between them.

(Rabbi<sup>8</sup>

Yehuda, who learns from "on the day it appears to him" and from here they said groom and Festival, i.e., a commandment, they wait for him,

but for a matter of permission they do not wait for him regarding impurity of the body,

and Rabbi holds that even for a matter of permission they wait for him)<sup>9</sup>.

And it can be said,

that according to Rava, that "a matter of permission is the difference between them," Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi differ in the definition of this law that there is no viewing of lesions for a groom and on a Festival:

The difference between the two studies

(from the verse or from a kal vachomer from the plagues of houses)

Simply put: that which "they wait for him for a matter of permission" is only in the category of "deferral"

(and as the simple meaning of the language and the concept of "they wait for him for a matter of permission"),

that the Torah had pity on his vessels that they should not become impure

(and as Rashi's language¹⁰

"The Torah had pity only on vessels of <pg>38</pg>

earthenware that have no purification in a mikveh"),

and therefore¹¹

the viewing of the plague is deferred

("they wait")

until he takes out his vessels,

and certainly for a matter of a mitzvah the viewing of the plague is deferred until after the seven days of the feast and the seven days of the festival¹²

; but not so according to the study from "And on the day it appears in it,

there is a day etc. that you do not see in it" its meaning is that it is a law of the Torah¹³,

that these days¹⁴

were removed from the law of viewing plagues¹⁵,

and that is that this is not a deferral until after these days only — "they wait for him" — but rather that on these days the law does not apply¹⁶

of viewing the plague at all¹⁷.

[And perhaps one could say even more than this — that there is also a practical difference in law,

for according to the reason that "they wait for him etc." this is only a permission,

that it is possible to postpone the viewing of the plague until after the festival,

but in practice, if the priest saw the plague on these days and ruled it as impure, it is impure¹²

; but not so according to the teaching "there is a day that you do not see",

since<pg>39</pg>

that the law of seeing the plague does not apply on these days,

therefore even if the priest transgressed and saw the plague,

this seeing has no power to render impure].

And this is also the reason that "the matter of permission is between them": if we derive groom and festival from a kal vachomer that "if they wait for him for a matter of permission, all the more so for a matter of commandment,"

that this is only in the category of "deferral,"

behold, just as in the case of houses afflicted with plague, the viewing of the plague is deferred even for a matter of permission,

so is it deferred regarding impurity of the body; but if it is a Torah law that these days are exempted from the law of viewing the plague,

it is logical that this law is only for a matter of commandment,

that only a matter of commandment has the power to exempt any law of viewing the plague on these days.

2.

And it is to explain these two ways in the manner of homiletics and ethics,

and with the introduction of the words of the Rambam at the end of the laws of impurity of leprosy¹⁸

: "And this change mentioned in garments and houses that the Torah called leprosy in a shared name is not according to the natural course of the world, but rather a sign and a wonder was in Israel to warn them against evil speech, that one who speaks evil speech, the walls of his house change,

if he repents, the house becomes pure; if he persists in his wickedness until the house is demolished, the leather vessels in his house change, etc.; and if he persists in his wickedness until they are burned, the garments on him change,

if he repents, they become pure; and if he persists in his wickedness until they are burned, his skin changes and he becomes leprous and is separated and made conspicuous alone until he does not engage in the conversation of the wicked, which is mockery and evil speech."

And from his words it is understood¹⁹,

that the matter of the negaim is a matter of kindness from Above,

for the good of the person and for his benefit,

so that through the negaim he will return from his evil way.

And as the Chinuch wrote "from the roots of the commandment²⁰

that the Almighty in His great goodness wanted to chastise him as a man chastises his son..

out of love²¹

Hashem for them He will make known His discipline".

And furthermore,

that in the matter of the negaim one sees the greatness of the love of the Holy One, blessed be He, for each and every one of Israel,

even for the wicked,

that in order to warn him and separate him from his evil way,

the Holy One, blessed be He, changes the orders and nature of creation

(in a manner of "a sign and wonder"),

until this wicked one returns from his way,

"that he not engage in the conversation of the wicked",

and his conversation will be like "the conversation²²

of the kosher ones of Israel"²³.

And one can say,

that for this reason specifically in the laws of negaim the Torah said that there is a situation that delays the impurity of the negah until after a time,

whether in negaim of houses,

that "and the kohen shall command, and they shall empty the house before the kohen comes to see the negah, and all that is in the house shall not become impure",

and whether in negaim of a person,

that a groom they give him all the seven days of the feast,

to teach us,

that the negaim themselves come from the side of the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He,

"as a man chastises his son",

&lt;pg&gt;40&lt;/pg&gt;

And therefore in a certain situation they delay the impurity.

And also this matter

(like the generalities of the "chesed" in negaim)

The Holy One, blessed be He, does also with this man who spoke lashon hara until the walls of his house changed,

that also on his money the Torah had pity,

and as emphasized in the Mishnah²⁴

(regarding the law of "and they shall clear the house")

"On what did the Torah have pity? On his earthenware vessels, etc. If the Torah had pity on his despised money, etc. If so, on that of a wicked person, how much more so on that of a righteous person"²⁵.

3.

Based on this, one can say,

that the two manners above — the cancellation of the law of seeing a negah because of "a matter of a mitzvah"

(learned from "And on the day it appears in him..

there is a day that you do not see"),

or the postponement of seeing the negah even for a matter of permission — indicate two types of virtues of a Jewish person that cannot be nullified

(therefore they are found even in one who was punished with negaim,

which indicates his very low state as above).

Explanation of the matter:

In that "the Torah had pity on his despised money..

of a wicked person" the virtue of every Jewish person is evident,

that so beloved is he before the Holy One, blessed be He,

that the Torah had pity not only on him

(on his body and soul),

but on every thing of his,

even "his despised money",

despite the fact that this is only a "matter of permission"

(that is not for the sake of a commandment and fulfillment of the command of the Holy One, blessed be He,

only for the pleasure of this person),

nevertheless,

since it is money of a Jewish person,

behold the Torah had pity on it, as the saying²⁶

"the Torah had pity on the money of Israel"

(and even though a Jew has sinned, he is²⁷).

And this that they suspend the law of seeing a plague because of a "matter of a mitzvah" of the one in whom a plague is seen — indicates the superiority of the deed of a mitzvah of a Jewish man,

that even a "matter of a mitzvah" of the one in whom a plague is seen,

who stood in his wickedness so much,

until he did not regret even after the walls of his house were changed and also his garments were changed,

and there is need that the skin of his body be changed,

nevertheless there is in the power of his "matter of a mitzvah" to suspend the law of seeing a plague.

And there is in this that which is not in this:

This that "the Torah has pity on his despised money..

of a wicked person" is connected with the virtue of a Jewish person from the aspect of the name and concept of Israel,

that because Israel "even though he sinned, Israel is he",

that even a wicked person is not divested of the name "Israel",

and therefore it makes no difference what matter is discussed,

that even regarding "his despised money" and he uses it only for "a permitted thing",

the Holy One, blessed be He, has pity on it

(because it is in the ownership of a Jewish person).

And this that they suspend the law of seeing plagues because of a "matter of a commandment" of the afflicted one,

this indicates the greatness of the holiness of his performance of the commandments,

that because of the holiness of the commandment it is impossible for the law of impurity of plagues to take effect²⁸.

For although he does deeds of wickedness and separates himself from anything holy and seemingly he is not connected

(in this state of his)

to a matter of revealed holiness

[for even though "Israel is he",

still there is room to say that this is not sufficient that there should be with him a matter of the holiness of the commandments<pg>41</pg>

Openly²⁹]

— meaning that this renews the study from "And on the day it appears..."

"There is a day that you do not see",

that not only is the name Israel not removed from this person,

but furthermore³⁰,

that "a matter of a commandment"³¹

of his in his power³²

to remove the law of seeing plagues

(and their impurity).

And this is also the inner explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi [Yosi] regarding a groom and a Festival — that they disagree which of the above virtues is greater:

Rabbi holds that the first superiority mentioned above — that the Torah also spares the despised money of a wicked person,

that this is from the aspect of his name "Israel" — is more elevated,

and therefore he holds,

that this is the reason for the law that they give the groom seven days,

that "they wait for him",

meaning that they postpone the viewing of the plague because of the endearment of a Jewish person; and this is also his kal vachomer,

"If they wait for him for a mundane matter, all the more so for a matter of a mitzvah" — for if the endearment of Israel is effective to postpone the viewing of the plague for the sake of mundane matters of Israel,

all the more so in a matter of a mitzvah;

And Rabbi Yehuda holds,

that this, that even the mitzvah act of the leprous person has holiness sufficient to set aside the law of viewing the plague, is a greater superiority — and therefore he holds that this is a novelty of the Torah in the law of "a groom..

they give him seven days of the feast".

(From the talk of the night of 29 Elul,

Erev Rosh Hashanah,

5746)