English translation — תזריע ג

1.

At the end of the series it speaks about a garment in which there was a plague,

and they isolated it for seven days; and when they saw on the seventh day that the plague had not spread,

they washed it and again isolated it for seven days.

Says here the verse: "And the garment etc. which you shall wash, and the plague has departed from them,

and you shall wash a second time and it shall be clean" — that if after the second isolation they see that through the previous washing the plague was removed from it,

one must wash the garment a second time,

and then it is clean.

Rashi stands on the words "and you shall wash a second time",

and explains: "an expression of immersion" — that "and you shall wash a second time" means

(not that one should again <b>wash</b> the garment,

but)

that one should <b>immerse</b> it.

And Rashi brings a proof for this from the Targum: "The translation of the washings in this portion is an expression of whitening and it shall become white,

except for this one which is not for whitening but for immersion,

therefore its translation is 'and it shall be dyed'" — since the word "washing" everywhere in this portion<sup>1</sup>

the Targum translates as "and it shall become white",

which means "whitening"

(washing),

and the word "and you shall wash

(a second time)

" of our verse he translates as "and it shall be dyed",

it is a proof that "and you shall wash" here means not washing but immersing.

And Rashi adds "and so all washings of garments that are for immersion are translated as 'and it shall be dyed'" — that in every place<sup>2</sup>

where in the verse it says regarding garments the term washing,

where its meaning is

(not washing,

but)

immersion<sup>3</sup>,

the Targum translates it with the expression "and it shall be dyed".

2.

From the fact that Rashi does not say briefly "like its Targum veyitzba" but rather he writes a whole lengthy "Targum of washing etc. and likewise all washings of garments etc." it is evident that Rashi wants to clarify that with "veyitzba" the Targum means immersion and not washing out.

And on this Rashi brings a twofold proof: a)

That "veyitzba" means <b>not</b> washing out,

because washing out he translates "veyitchavar",

not "veyitzba".

b)

That "veyitzba" means <b>immersion</b>,

because wherever it says regarding garments the term kibus which means immersion, its Targum is "veyitzba".

One must understand:

a)

Why does Rashi need both proofs? At first glance, from the very fact that the Targum translates here the word "וכבס" differently than its translation of כיבוס meaning laundering,

it is clear,

that the "וכבס" of our verse means <b>not</b> washing — and consequently it is understood that it means immersion

(because "כיבוס" carries within itself no more than these two meanings)

; and all the more so,

that it is sufficient only with the second proof,

that one finds explicitly that "ויצטבע" is the translation of immersion.

Now why does Rashi need to come to both proofs?

b)

In order to know that "ויצטבע" means immersion, it is not important with which language the immersion stands in the verse; whether with the language of כיבוס or with another language,

Rashi should have written briefly: וכן כל טבילה דבגדים מתורגם ויצטבע.

Why does Rashi need to write "וכן כל כבוסי בגדים שהן לטבילה",

that the translation of ויצטבע is on the language <b>כיבוס</b> which speaks about immersion of <b>garments</b>?

Is the explanation in this:

From the fact that the Targum writes the term "יצטבע" there where it speaks about immersion is no proof that "יצטבע" means only immersion and not washing out,

because one can say that "יצטבע" is a general term

(just as the term כיבוס in the Torah)

which contains within itself both matters: both washing out and immersion.

Therefore Rashi must come to his first proof "the Targum of the launderings in this portion is the language of whitening and it will become clear except for this etc." — that from the fact that the Targum is here <b>different</b> from its language which it uses in <b>the</b> portion by laundering the language of whitening,

it is evident that here it indeed means a <b>different</b> matter.

But also <b>this</b> proof is not sufficient.

Because it could be that his change is due to beauty of expression.

As we find in several places that when mentioning the same matter several times consecutively,

one changes the wording due to beauty of expression.

Therefore Rashi adds "and <b>all</b> <b>launderings</b> <b>of garments</b> that are for immersion are translated 'veyistabea'",

that the wording 'veyistabea' is used by the Targum <b>every</b> time

(not merely regarding immersion,

but)

to explain the word <b>laundering</b> that speaks about <b>garments</b>.

Now since in our verse the Targum uses to explain the word <b>and he shall launder</b> that speaks about a <b>garment</b> with the word "veyistabea" — then there is no place to say that his change of language from "veyitchavar"

(which he uses in this parshah regarding whitening)

to "veyistabea" is only due to beauty of expression — because one could indeed think that his reason for the change is because here he means immersion

(and it is obvious that due to beauty of expression one does not write a wording that gives a place for error).

Thus it is forced from this that with 'veyistabea' he indeed means immersion.

3.

Thus far is regarding Rashi's proof that the Targum with its explanation "veyistzabe'a" means immersion.

But it is not understood:

a)

Since the verse says "and he shall wash <b>a second time</b>",

one should wash the garment a <b>second</b> time,

it seemingly has no place to say that "and he shall wash" here should mean immersion,

the first time one <b>washed</b> the garment; washing and immersing are two separate things — it seemingly does not fit to say regarding the later immersion the expression "a second time" only because it too is called with the same language

(washing)

as the previous laundering.

And since in the verse it says "and he shall wash <b>a second time</b>" one must — according to the simple meaning — explain that also the second washing means laundering.

Then why does Rashi teach "and he shall wash — language of immersion"?

The question is even stronger: from the very fact that Rashi needs to come to a proof from Targum for his explanation that "וכבס" here is language of immersion,

it is clear that Rashi himself takes this explanation as not a simple one, and that in plain meaning one would need to learn better that the "וכבס" of our verse is language of laundering.

So why does Rashi actually teach that "וכבס" here means immersion?

Rashi is, after all, not obligated to teach like the Targum!

b)

Rashi focuses on the words "וכבס שנית".

And at first glance,

Rashi explains only the word "וכבס" — why does he also cite the word "שנית",

which he does not explain?

4.

At first glance one could answer both questions with one another: since the verse says "and he shall wash <b>a second time</b>" — that one should wash the garment a second time — it means then that he already washed it,

and the garment is a clean one.

Now what is the purpose of washing it,

which according to the plain meaning washing is relevant — where there is a stain and the like,

but immersion — is a law of purity,

as already learned earlier several times?

Therefore Rashi learns that by "and he shall wash a second time" is meant not washing,

rather immersing⁴.

And the question — what is the purpose of washing the garment a second time when one has already washed it once and it is clean — he addresses: "It is a commandment to wash it times,"

that is,

it is a "commandment" for which we do not know a reason.

Rashi, however, does not want to accept according to the plain meaning that this is a decree of the verse,

therefore he learns that "and he shall wash" means immersion].

And therefore Rashi also quotes the word "shnees,"

although he does not explain it,

because the word compels his interpretation of "vechibes."

In truth, however,

one cannot learn it this way,

because the proof that vechibes does not mean washing the garment again is not from the word "shnees,"

but from that which it says explicitly earlier in the verse "vehabeged etc. asher techabes vesur meihem hanega" — that the garment was already washed and the affliction had departed from it

(and as Rashi adds: "sar mimenu hanega legamrei").

So even if Rashi would not quote

The word "shnees" that stands <b>after</b> "vechibes",

one already understands also the difficulty in the explanation "vechibes" language of whitening.

Rashi would then not need to force the explanation "vechibes — language of immersion" from the subsequent word "shnees",

when the explanation is compelled from the preceding words.

Heh.

Already spoken many times,

that when Rashi stands on several words although he explains only a part of them — it can be in two ways; either that the brought-down words are a proof and compulsion to his explanation; or that from the words there is even a question on his explanation,

and Rashi cites them to defend that even so he learns according to his explanation.

And according to this one could say,

that that which Rashi also cites the word "sheinis" is

(not because from this word there is a proof to his commentary,

but on the contrary)

because from the wording "vechibes &lt;b&gt;sheinis&lt;/b&gt;" it appears prima facie that with the second washing is meant laundering,

just like with the first.

And Rashi stands on "vechibes sheinis" to warn that although from the wording it appears that vechibes is the language of laundering,

nevertheless I interpret it as the language of immersion,

because it is difficult to say that the Torah should command washing a garment after "and the plague has departed from them."

6.

According to this, however, it remains difficult: according to the interpretation "vechoves lashon libun" only the &lt;b&gt;reason&lt;/b&gt; of the law is not understood — there are indeed many and many laws,

especially in the portion of negaim,

whose reason we do not know; on the other hand, according to the interpretation "vechoves lashon tevilah" it is difficult that the word "sheinis" apparently has no meaning.

So how does Rashi teach a commentary that is contrary to the plain meaning of the wording of the verse only because we have no reasoning why one should need to wash a clean garment a second time?

The question is even stronger: in an earlier verse⁵

it says,

that if during the seven days of the second quarantine the plague became dim,

one must tear out and burn the place of the plague.

It is thus implied from this,

that with the <b>mere</b> tearing out of the place of the plague, the remaining part of the garment is already pure⁶.

The question arises: if so, when the washing did not remove the plague,

it only became dim,

the

(remaining part of)

garment is pure,

then certainly when "the plague <b>departed</b> from them" and as Rashi emphasizes <b>completely</b>,

the garment must surely be immediately pure,

why then does the verse say "and he shall wash it a second time"?

And <b>this</b> question is specifically according to the interpretation "and he shall wash — an expression of immersion": according to the interpretation "and he shall wash — an expression of laundering" there is no stringency regarding "the plague departed from them" over "the plague became dim",

because <b>washing</b> is needed only for the part of the garment "that which has the plague"⁷.

And consequently it turns out that the <b>entirety</b> of the garment requires no action and is pure in both cases,

and the place of the plague is indeed more severe in the case of "became dim" than in the case of "departed": when the plague

(only)

became dim,

one must tear out and burn the place of the plague,

and when "the plague departed from them" one need only wash the place⁸.

However, according to the interpretation "and he shall wash — an expression of immersion" which means immersing the <b>entire</b> garment⁹

(for immersion does not apply to a part of an object¹⁰),

it turns out that "the plague departed from them" is more severe than "the plague became dim".

Today, since the law of "and he shall wash a second time" is not understood according to both interpretations

Because the question of what is the purpose of washing a clean garment is only a matter that challenges logic; but the question of why "and it shall depart" should be harsher than "dimmed" is a matter of the <b>opposite</b> of logic]

And from the expression "and he shall wash <b>a second time</b>" it is proven that the second washing is exactly like the first,

should Rashi have then learned that "and he shall wash" means to rinse out?

But in truth, Rashi's proof is indeed from the expression "and he shall wash <b>a second time</b>" — and Rashi with his copyist also intend to bring the word "a second time" as a <b>proof</b> for his interpretation — as will be explained further.

7.

The reason for washing the garment after the "&lt;b&gt;and the plague has departed&lt;/b&gt; from them" can be learned in two ways:

a)

In this washing and cleansing of the garment in which the plague is, there are specific laws.

And specifically then, when the cleansing is according to the indicated laws,

the Torah says that the plague has departed from the garment.

When

One moves it however in a different manner,

not according to the laws of the Torah — although in the eyes of man one sees no lesion — regarding the laws of the Torah concerning impurity of lesions the lesion still exists.

And therefore,

in our case: since that "and the lesion has departed from them" came through a washing that was done because of confining the lesion

(in order to see what will be with it after seven days¹¹)

and <b>not</b> in order to purify it,

is

(according to the laws of the Torah)

the lesion still remained.

Therefore the garment must have a second washing — one whose purpose is to <b>purify</b> it.

Because specifically through <b>this</b> washing the Torah says that the lesion has gone from the garment.

— An <b>example</b> of this from the impurity of lesions itself: their impurity and purity depends on the priest saying <b>explicitly</b>: pure,

pure¹².

(And this can also be learned in the language of the verse: "And he shall wash a second time and be clean",

that the "and be clean" refers

(not only to the &lt;b&gt;garment&lt;/b&gt;,

that through the washing it becomes pure,

but also)

to the "&lt;b&gt;and he shall wash&lt;/b&gt;",

that the washing comes for the sake of purifying; the verse itself,

it means,

explains the purpose of the second washing on the first — that its matter is &lt;b&gt;and be clean&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;).

b)

Since the place where the lesion occurred is a part of the garment,

the impurity has spread into the entire garment.

And therefore also when "the lesion has departed from them" according to Torah law,

one must wash the &lt;b&gt;garment&lt;/b&gt;,

in order to purify it from the impurity that has spread into it.

And that which in the case of "the plague dimmed" one must <b>not</b> launder the garment a second time — it is because at the time of "the plague dimmed" one tears out the place of the plague from the garment,

and the priest has <b>not</b> yet declared it impure, and from now on the place of the plague has no connection with the entirety of the garment.

8.

The practical difference between the two approaches is:

According to the first manner,

that the "and he shall wash" is in order to remove the <b>plague</b> from the garment,

one can learn that "and he shall wash" means washing.

For just as a plague which we see before the eyes, one removes it through washing,

so too is the "cleansing" and "removing" of the plague which we do not see before the eyes — through washing.

According to the second manner, however,

that the "and he shall wash" is in order to purify the garment from its impurity which has spread into it from the plague,

it is necessary that "and he shall wash" means here "immersion".

For since the plague itself is no longer there — "and it is gone",

and the "and he shall wash" is in order to purify the garment from <b>impurity</b>,

it is therefore understandable that "and he shall wash" means immersion,

like any impurity whose purification is specifically through immersion.

9.

Based on this, it will be understood that from the wording "and he shall wash &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt;" Rashi derives that the "and he shall wash" of our verse is an expression of immersion:

The wording "and he shall wash &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt;" — that one should wash the garment a &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; time clearly proves that also the first washing accomplished a certain purification and the second washing comes in continuation of the previous one,

it is a second to the first.

One must therefore necessarily say that in both the content is the same.

Both,

it means,

come to purify the garment.

One cannot then learn that by "and he shall wash" is meant scouring,

because according to that explanation one must necessarily say that the first washing accomplished no purification in the garment,

rather it came only to confine it — then the wording "and he shall wash &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt;" does not fit,

since the two washings have no relationship between themselves: the first washing comes to confine,

and the later one — to purify

(And on the contrary: from the practical side of laundering, the term "shneet" according to the interpretation "language of whitening" seems more fitting than according to the interpretation "language of immersion",

because specifically according to the interpretation "language of whitening" one does the same action both times)

But it does not say in the verse "And he shall wash &lt;b&gt;again&lt;/b&gt; a time" — that one should wash &lt;b&gt;another&lt;/b&gt; time — rather "And he shall wash &lt;b&gt;a second time&lt;/b&gt;",

a &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; time,

and since the other washing does not come in sequence to the previous one,

it cannot be called "second",

it is not a second to the first,

it is a matter unto itself].

Therefore it is necessary to learn that also the first washing already effected a certain purity,

Only that in the first washing something was still lacking,

One must wash a <b>second</b> time in order to <b>complete</b> and <b>perfect</b> the first purity: The first washing removed the plague from the garment and through this purified it from the impurity of the plague itself,

And after the impurity of the plague itself had already been <b>removed</b> <b>completely</b> from the garment through its first washing¹⁵,

the second washing comes to purify it also from

the impurity that had spread from the plague¹⁶.

Yud.

In Rashi there is also "yeynah shel Torah"¹⁷

Nega'im come

(mainly)

because of the sin of lashon hara¹⁸.

And since lashon hara is a general sin,

as the Rambam¹⁹

says that lashon hara brings about the worst things until "to speak against God and deny the fundamental principle",

it is understood that in the laws of purification of nega'im are indicated the ways and methods of teshuvah

(not only for the sin itself²⁰,

but also)

for all categories of sins:

Just as when there is a plague in a garment,

also after one has laundered it and the laundering has removed from it the plague,

one must launder it a second time — so too when a Jew commits a sin,

also after he does repentance and the sin is completely forgiven him,

he must still come to

(a burnt-offering,

and in the time of exile — to)

fasts,

so that he should become "desirable and beloved before Him, may He be blessed, as before the sin"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

One could think,

that since he must still come to fasts, this is a proof that the sin still remains in him — Rashi gives a teaching,

that also through the first laundering "the plague has departed from him &lt;b&gt;completely&lt;/b&gt;"

(and as the Alter Rebbe says&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

"that he is forgiven &lt;b&gt;completely&lt;/b&gt;"),

and that which he is still not "desirable and beloved before Him, may He be blessed, as before the sin" is only because of that which a certain effect that the sin caused remains — the sin itself, however, has already been erased.

And therefore, although it must be "all his days in repentance"²²,

since however the sin has already been erased through teshuvah tata'ah,

the repentance must consist not in cleansing the sin — cleansing [as] language of whitening,

but in immersion "in the pure waters of knowledge"²³.

As it is stated in Tanya²⁴

that the repentance which must be "all his days" is teshuvah ila'ah,

whose essence is²⁵

— "that he engage in Torah etc.'"

(From the sichah of Shabbos Parshas Tazria,

5725)