torah

Considering Tazria-Metzora: Mussar of Tzara’at

Posted

The primary focus of our parshiot, Tazria-Metzora, is the illness known as tzara’at. The unique nature of this disease is emphasized by the Rashbam who said that in this matter we may not “rely upon standard human knowledge and expertise [that is, current medical information]. Instead, we must follow the analysis (midrash) of the sages, their decrees, and the inherited body of knowledge that they received from the earliest sages.”

Thus, tzara’at can only be understood from the Torah’s standpoint, rather than from a physiological or medical perspective — because it is a spiritually based ailment that manifests in a physical fashion.

As the Rashbam notes, one of the forms of tzara’at directly affects a house:

“When you come to the land of Canaan, which I am giving you as a possession, and I will place a lesion of tzara’at upon a house in the land of your possession, and the one to whom the house belongs comes and tells the kohen, saying, ‘Something like a lesion (k’nega) has appeared to me in the house’.” 

This pasuk appears to be quite negative, especially in light of the Torah’s command to “demolish the house, its stones, its wood, and all the [mortar] dust of the house” (14:45) if the tzara’at cannot be removed in any other way.

However, Rashi, basing himself upon the Talmud and two midrashim, notes that the destruction of the house actually results in a very fortunate outcome:

• • •

At first glance, it is difficult to understand why Chazal and Rashi interpret, “V’na’tati a lesion of tzara’at upon a house,” in this manner. Rabbi Baruch Halevi Epstein addresses this problem and suggests a cogent textually based solution: “The reason for this analysis stems from the word, v’na’tati, since, in our instance the Torah does not state, ‘when a lesion of tzara’at will be found in a house in the Land,’ as is the case regarding lesions that affect people and clothing. Moreover, in general, [any form of] the expression, netina, that is from the Holy One blessed be He, leads to something good.

“[Thus, we find,] ‘v’na’tati your rains in their time’ (Vayikra 26:4), ‘v’na’tati peace in the Land’ (Vayikra 26:6) and ‘v’na’tati salvation in Zion, to Israel, My glory’ (Yeshayahu 46:13). Therefore, they interpreted this use of our term, v’na’tati, as having a positive valence.” (Torah Temimah, Parashat Metzora, note 111)

In sum, according to Rav Epstein, our sages’ understanding of v’na’tati is congruent with Rabbi Akiva’s famous aphorism: “Everything that the Holy One blessed be He does is for the best.” (Talmud Bavli, Berachot 60b)

The next pasuk contains a fascinating nuance: “Something like a lesion (k’nega) has appeared to me in the house.” Why do homeowners need to speak in such an indeterminate fashion, especially if they are well-versed in the laws of negayim and know that their home is afflicted with tzara’at? Why can they not straightforwardly declare to the kohen who comes to inspect their premises: “A lesion (nega) has appeared to me in the house?” 

Rashi draws our attention to this issue when he cites the statement from Mishnah Negayim 12:5 which rules, like our pasuk, that k’nega, rather than nega, is the halachically mandated statement — even for talmidei chachamim.

As we would expect, there are many different approaches as to why this is the case. One of the most fascinating is offered by Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi, one of Rashi’s best-known supercommentators: “But I have heard from my teachers, that this verse is not being precise in its nomenclature in regard to stating something is absolutely [nega] or doubtfully [k’nega] a ritually pure (tahor) or impure lesion (tamei), rather it is addressing a matter of derech eretz (ethical behavior). That is, a person [should never declare a lesion to be tamei,] even if the matter is crystal clear in their eyes (vadai), instead, they must always state that the lesion is only perhaps (safek) tamei [and leave the determination to the kohen]. This is in congruence with Chazal’s dictum: ‘One should always teach his tongue to say: ‘I don’t know’.” (Talmid Bavli, Berachot 4a, Sefer Ha-Mizrachi, Vayikra 14:35)

The Mizrachi’s explanation is particularly beautiful. In a few short words, he has universalized the Mishnah’s ruling and placed it squarely in the category of derech eretz, an area of our spiritual lives whose import cannot be overestimated. As Rav Yishmael bar Rav Nachman famously said:

Derech eretz preceded the [giving of] the Torah by 26 generations.” (Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 9:3) The underlying meaning of this concept was given voice in Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah’s far earlier aphorism: “If there is no Torah, there is no derech eretz; if there is no derech eretz, there is no Torah.” (Pirkei Avot 3:17) In other words, even though we are blessed with the Torah, it is in addition to, and does not supplant, the fundamental obligation to live lives based upon ethically-suffused actions, for the Torah, itself, depends upon derech eretz.

May the Almighty ever guide us on the path of righteousness and justice, and may the derech eretz reflected by our actions enable us to become His authentic servants. V’chane yihi ratzon.