Tzara'at/2/en

Tzara'at

Exegetical Approaches

Overview

In attempting to understand the nature of tzara'at, commentators choose between two main approaches.  Chazal, followed by most exegetes, suggest that the affliction is Divinely sent as punishment for sin.  They point to Biblical cases of tzara'at where this is apparent, and they view the details of its restrictions and purification processes as reflecting sin and atonement. Ralbag, in contrast, views tzara'at as a natural disease which might plague any individual.  According to him, the malady, like other forms of impurity, is unrelated to sin.  Thus, many of the laws governing the condition are medicinal in nature and intended to prevent contagion, while others are simply standard rites of purification, found elsewhere as well.

Divine Punishment

Tzara'at is a malady sent by Hashem to warn or punish a person for sin.

Sources:ToseftaNegaim 6:6About the Tosefta, BavliYoma 11bArakhin 15bArakhin 16aAbout the Bavli, Vayikra Rabbah17:317:4About Vayikra Rabbah, Bemidbar Rabbah7:5About Bemidbar Rabbah, TanchumaTazria 10Metzora 4About the Tanchuma, RashiVayikra 13:45-46Vayikra 14:4About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki, Kuzari2:58-62About R. Yehuda HaLevi, Ibn EzraVayikra 13:2Vayikra 13:45Vayikra 14:4,7,10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorVayikra 13:45-46Vayikra 14:4-7Vayikra 14:21Vayikra 14:53About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambamHilkhot Tume'at Tzara'at 16:10Moreh Nevukhim 3:47About R. Moshe b. Maimon, RambanVayikra 13:47Vayikra 14:4Vayikra 14:18Vayikra 14:34Vayikra 14:53About R. Moshe b. Nachman, AbarbanelVayikra 12Vayikra 13:1Vayikra 14:33About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoVayikra 13:2-3,5Vayikra 14:12Vayikra 14:55About R. Ovadyah Seforno, R. S"R HirschVayikra 13:2Vayikra 13About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch

Natural or supernatural? The Kuzari,¹ Rambam,² Ramban,³ and R. Hirsch⁴ all suggest that the condition is completely supernatural in nature, while Ibn Ezra,⁵ R"Y Bechor Shor, Abarbanel, and Seforno all imply that, despite the Divine involvement, tzara'at of the body⁶ might nonetheless be a naturally occurring disease, or at least have some natural aspects.⁷

For which sins? These sources disagree regarding which sins cause a person to be plagued with tzara'at, but most of them speak of slander⁸ and/or haughtiness.⁹  Several of the Midrashic sources¹⁰ include long lists of potential sins,¹¹ mentioning theft, murder, selfishness, lying, desecration of God's name, overstepping boundaries, illicit sexual relations, and swearing falsely.

Biblical cases – This position is supported by the fact that most of the stories in Tanakh which mention a person being afflicted with tzara'at, explicitly speak of it as a punishment:

• Bemidbar 12 – Miryam is Divinely struck with tzara'at for speaking against Moshe.
• Shemuel II 3 – Yoav is cursed with tzara'at for killing Avner against David's wishes.
• Melakhim II 5 – Geichazi is plagued by tzara'at after he disobeys Elisha.
• Divrei HaYamim II 26 – King Uziyahu is punished with tzara'at for his haughtiness in performing the incense rites.

From this list, it seems that the common denominator between the various sins is a rebellion against authority.¹²

Comparison to tzara'at of the house and clothing – According to many of these sources,¹³ the afflictions brought on a person's clothing and house are meant to serve as warnings of sin which will lead the person to repent before he is also bodily afflicted.¹⁴  Abarbanel adds that the obvious supernatural nature of the plague on the house comes to teach that tzara'at of the body and clothing are also Divine and providential.¹⁵

"וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת" – Ramban¹⁶ points out that the language of "וְנָתַתִּי" suggests that Hashem is actively bringing the plague and that it cannot be attributed to natural causes.¹⁷ R. Hirsch adds that the word "נֶגַע" itself has the specific connotation of a plague brought by Divine decree,¹⁸ rather than an ordinary disease.

Why does tzara'at cause impurity? These sources might suggest that the impure state represents God's wrath at and rejection of the sinner.

Comparison to other forms of impurity – Most other conditions which cause impurity (bodily emissions, childbirth, and death) do not seem to be connected to sin and punishment, but are rather natural states.  As such, this understanding of tzara'at would make it an exceptional form of impurity.

Role of the priest – The afflicted person is inspected by a priest, rather than a doctor, since this is a cultic issue of sin and impurity, rather than a natural disease.¹⁹  Seforno adds that the priest will both push the person to reflect on his deeds and pray for him as well.

Diagnosis and treatment of the defiled individual – These sources view the laws governing the diagnosis and behavior of the defiled person as related to his sin:

• Seven day periods of confinement – These intervals are opportunities for the individual to reflect and repent, so as to prevent the need for further punishment.
• Isolation – Rashi, following Bavli Arakhin, explains that this is a "measure for measure" punishment. Since the metzora, through his gossip, caused people to separate from one another, he, too, is separated from society.  Alternatively, R. Hirsch suggests that the isolation serves to shame the person into self-reflection²⁰ and correction of his negative social behavior.²¹
• "בְּגָדָיו יִהְיוּ פְרֻמִים וְרֹאשׁוֹ יִהְיֶה פָרוּעַ" – Rashi, Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Abarbanel point out that these are all signs of mourning. Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel explain that the metzora must mourn his wayward ways that led to the affliction, while R"Y Bekhor Shor claims that he mourns his rejection by Hashem.

Aspects of the purification process – These sources similarly understand many aspects of the purification process as  atonement or punishment for sin:

• Sending away of birds – Ramban compares the birds to the goat that is sent to Azazel as part of the Yom HaKippurim purification process, suggesting that each is intended to symbolize the carrying away of the people's sins.²²  Bavli Arakhin explains that birds were chosen specifically because they chirp, thereby reminding the person of his sin of speaking about others.²³ 
• Cedar and hyssop – Rashi and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggest that these symbolize the fact that the person who had been haughty²⁴ is now humbled and brought low.²⁵
• Scarlet thread – R"Y Bekhor Shor notes that the scarlet color represents sin, as Yeshayahu says, "אִם יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ".
• Sin offerings – The sin and guilt offerings are brought as part of the process of atonement.

Arguments against a medical understanding – R. Hirsch argues forcefully against a medical understanding of the affliction, bringing numerous proofs from the laws relating to it. For example, he points out that if tzara'at covers the entire body it does not generate impurity. This would be counter-intuitive were the process to be one of disease control. Similarly, with regards to tzara'at of the house, before the priest enters to declare it pure or impure, all items from the house are removed so as to maintain their purity. If the process was meant to prevent contagion or the like, this too would be illogical.²⁶

Natural Disease

Tzara'at is a natural disease which can strike a person regardless of whether they sinned or not.

Sources:R. Yochanan in Bavli KetubotKetubot 77bAbout the Bavli,²⁷ RalbagVayikra 11:47Vayikra 13:4Vayikra 13:5Vayikra 13:13About R. Levi b. Gershom, ShadalVayikra 12:2About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto, R. David Zvi HoffmannVayikra 13About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

What disease? None of these sources attempt to identify tzara'at with a specific known disease,²⁸ sufficing with the claim that it was a malady that could have affected anyone.

Tzara'at of the house and clothing – Ralbag attempts to give a natural explanation for these forms of tzara'at, as well, explaining that moisture or warmth can cause natural properties to be weakened, thereby causing rotting or discoloration.²⁹

Connection to other forms of impurity – As other cases of impurity (e.g. bodily emissions, corpses, and childbirth) result from natural processes and do not appear to be related to sin or punishment, it is logical to assume that tzara'at is no different.

Divine providence: plague without sin?

• Ralbag believes that not every individual merits Divine providence, and that it is possible that a person will suffer due to natural causes or "chance".³⁰  As such, according to his theology, it is possible that a person could contract a debilitating disease such as tzara'at without it being considered a Divine punishment.
• R. D"Z Hoffmann posits that though most maladies come as punishment, there are always exceptional cases which cannot be explained in such a manner.  Moreover, he questions why, if all diseases should be viewed as punishment for sin, it is only tzara'at that causes impurity.  He therefore concludes that it cannot be sin which led to the impurity of the metzora.

Why does it  cause impurity? These sources differ greatly in how they understand why this disease should cause impurity:

• Decay – According to Ralbag, most impurities relate to loss of life or potential life,³¹ when all that is left of man is his material being.³² This highlights that the physical ("material") aspect of man is not what is lofty, but rather only the spiritual ("form").³³ Thus, when certain bodily functions cause either an excess or decay of the physical material, they cause a defiling.³⁴ Tzara'at, which is an especially severe form of bodily decay which stems from and spreads throughout man's material body, thus promotes a high level of impurity.³⁵
• Promote belief in Divine providence – Shadal suggests that, in ancient times, people erroneously assumed that that the skin changes brought by tzara'at were a sign of God's wrath and concluded that the plagued individual must have sinned severely.  As such, they would naturally avoid the person.³⁶  Since this attitude, albeit mistaken, promoted belief in God's providence and the concepts of reward and punishment, the Torah allowed it to persist and established tzara'at as a form of impurity with all its accompanying laws.³⁷
• Symbolic of sin – R. Hoffmann suggests that all the various categories of impurity are meant to be symbolic of (but not a consequence of) sin.³⁸  In reality, any condition could have been chosen, but these were specified because they were outwardly better symbols. He suggests that the appearance of a person plagued by tzara'at, whose flesh was so disfigured, made people associate it with death,³⁹ and thus with sin.

Biblical cases – The fact that most Biblical cases of tzara'at appear to be Divinely meted out as a punishment poses a difficulty for this approach.⁴⁰ These sources might explain that Hashem is simply using an otherwise natural disease as a punishment, just as elsewhere he afflicts people with blindness or plague.

"וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת" – Ralbag explains that the language of "וְנָתַתִּי" need not imply that Hashem is actively bringing the plague.⁴¹  The affliction is simply attributed to Him since He is the first cause that drives everything in the world.⁴²

Role of priest – The priest is involved, not due to any need for atonement, but rather because the disease causes impurity, and the laws of ritual purity are in the priestly domain. Ralbag points out that the priest himself does not have to be the one to investigate and make the actual diagnosis, just to declare impurity.

An individual who is completely covered by tzara'at – R. Hirsch argues against this approach from the fact that an individual who is completely covered with tzara'at is considered pure, claiming that this would be counter-intuitive were the impurity to stem from disease and an attempt to prevent contagion. Ralbag, though, explains that such a state actually suggests that the person is close to recovery.  According to him, the person's natural warmth has pushed the disease to the edges of the body and it is soon to disappear entirely.

Aspects of the defilement/purification process – Since Shadal sees the laws of tzara'at as aimed at reinforcing the people's (mistaken) belief that it was caused by sin, he reads many aspects of the process as symbolic of sin or atonement,⁴³ just as the "Divine Punishment" approach does.⁴⁴  Ralbag, in contrast, disassociates the process from one of atonement and instead views some aspects as medical in nature and others as educational.⁴⁵  It is also possible that certain components of the ceremony are simply normal procedures found in many purification rites:

• Isolation – Ralbag maintains that the banishment from the camp is necessary to prevent contagion by others.
• Seven day periods of confinement – Ralbag suggests that this is the natural amount of time needed for a disease to progress and for certain symptoms to manifest themselves. Alternatively, one could view seven days as a typical formulaic period, similar to that found by other impurities.
• "בְּגָדָיו יִהְיוּ פְרֻמִים וְרֹאשׁוֹ יִהְיֶה פָרוּעַ וְעַל שָׂפָם יַעְטֶה" – Ralbag views this as related to the state of impurity created by tzara'at rather than to the disease itself. He suggests that these actions are meant to be signs of degradation which remind people of the lowliness of the material aspects of our being which caused this condition. Alternatively, this approach could explain, as does Ibn EzraVayikra 13:2Vayikra 13:45Vayikra 14:4,7,10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, that the covering of the mouth was meant to guard against infection.
• Burning of clothing/ destruction of home – These, too, might be explained as necessary precautions to prevent spread of the disease.⁴⁶ 
• Scarlet thread, hyssop, and cedar – Since the person is already cured at this point, these actions might have no medicinal purpose, but rather might simply be an intrinsic part of the purification rite. The fact that the same threesome is found in the red heifer ceremony might support the possibility that this is simply a standard component of purification.
• Sending away of bird – This, too might be related to purification rather than health, as a similar rite is found in the sending away of the goats on Yom HaKippurim.  See Rashbam who connects the two ceremonies, viewing both as rituals of purification. Alternatively, as Ibn EzraVayikra 14:4,7,10About R. Avraham ibn Ezra suggests, the birds are expelled to unsettled territory to ensure that they do not spread the disease.
• "Living" birds and water – The emphasis on life might serve as a contrast to the death symbolized by the decaying flesh of the person plagued by tzara'at.
• Shaving of hair – Ralbag maintains that since the hair grew from diseased blood, it might still have marks of the disease on it and needs to be shaved.
• Separation from sexual relations⁴⁷ – Ralbag explains that having sexual relations at this point might weaken the afflicted person and cause a relapse of the disease.
• Sin offerings – Several other forms of impurity⁴⁸ require the bringing of sin-offerings despite the fact that no apparent crime has been committed.  As such, it is possible that, in all of these cases, the offerings are unrelated to atonement.

¹ R. Yehuda HaLevi views tzara'at as a metaphysical consequence of sin. Normally, when Hashem's presence rests among the nation, they merit a certain Divine radiance, but when an individual sins, he loses this glow and the effects are manifest on either his body, clothing or home, in the form of tzara'at.

² In Hilkhot Tume'at Tzara'at, Rambam only speaks explicitly of tzara'at of the clothing and house as being out of the natural order, but in the Moreh Nevukhim, he refers to the affliction as a whole as a miracle.  He further points out that the Torah does not distinguish between the seemingly distinct phenomena of whiteness on the skin, loss of hair, or staining of the house and walls, referring to all as tzara'at.  Since the last two examples are clearly not natural, it would follow that the other conditions with the same name are miraculous as well.

³ Ramban explicitly refers to tzara'at of the clothing as something "which is not in nature at all".  However, since he then does not distinguish between the various types of the affliction, but rather views them all together as a sign of Divine disapproval and the removal of His presence (following the Kuzari), it appears that he believes that the other forms of tzara'at are similarly metaphysical phenomena.

⁴ See below for R. Hirsch's arguments against a medical understanding of the phenomenon.

⁵ He is not explicit, but does speak of the affliction as being contagious. Thus, he reads the need to cover the mouth ("וְעַל שָׂפָם יַעְטֶה") as a precaution lest the metzora infect the air, and the sending of the bird to an unsettled territory as a means of ensuring that it does not spread disease to people.

⁶ Both Seforno and Abarbanel, however, do claim that other forms of tzara'at are miraculous.  Seforno refers to both tzara'at of the house and clothing as a wonder (but implies that tzara'at of the body is not, and that the conditions discussed in the chapter refer to specific types of a more generally occurring disease).  Abarbanel similarly speaks of tzara'at of the house as being miraculous, but nonetheless advances a more natural theory for tzara'at of the clothing, suggesting that it might have been infected by the metzora.

⁷ As such, these latter commentators explain that certain aspects of the purification process are for medical reasons.  R"Y Bekhor Shor suggests that the isolation might relate to the contagious nature of the disease, while Abarbanel similarly explains that afflicted clothing must be put away for seven days lest they reinfect the person, and that a person even upon returning to the camp may not have relations with their spouse since it is not healthy for recovery.

⁸ See, for example Resh Lakish in Bavli Arakhin who makes a play on words, "זאת תהיה תורת המצורע זאת תהיה תורתו של מוציא שם רע".  Vaykira Rabbah, Tanchuma, and others derive this from Miryam who is struck by tzara'at after speaking against Moshe. Rambam similarly points to Devarim 24:8-9 where the Torah mentions Miryam specifically when warning about the malady.

⁹ As evidence, they point to Uziyahu, of whom the verse says, "וּכְחֶזְקָתוֹ גָּבַהּ לִבּוֹ עַד לְהַשְׁחִית" (Divrei HaYamim II 26), and who was then punished with tzara'at.

¹⁰ See Bavli Arakhin 16a, Vayikra Rabbah 17:3, Bemidbar Rabbah 7:5 and Tanchuma Metzora 4.

¹¹ These range from seven to eleven (and even more) items. The various sources attempt to link each suggestion with a case in Tanakh where someone committed that sin and was afflicted.  However, in many of the cases brought, it is either not explicit that the person actually sinned, or that the punishment they received was indeed tzara'at.

¹² See M. Ben-Yashar, "נגע הצרעת – על שום מה", who attempts to show that even other cases are also connected to this theme.  He proposes that when Hashem afflicted Moshe's hand in Shemot 4:1-7, this, too, might stem from a similar rebellion against authority, namely: Moshe's hesitation to heed Hashem's command and embark on His mission.  Similarly, though the text never states the reason for the tzara'at of Na'aman (Melakhim II 5) or the four metzoraim (Melakhim II 7), Ben Yashar suggests that both incidents lead to a demonstration of the power of the prophet and his word. When Na'aman requests to be cured, Elisha states, "יָבֹא נָא אֵלַי וְיֵדַע כִּי יֵשׁ נָבִיא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".  Similarly the four metzoraim play a role in ending the famine, confirming Elisha's earlier prophecy.

¹³ See Tosefta Negaim, Vayikra Rabbah, Tanchuma, R. Yehuda HaLevi, Rambam, Abarbanel and Seforno.

¹⁴ Ramban explains similarly, but claims that these forms of the affliction only occur in Israel (as per the verse by tzara'at of the house: "כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן").  He explains that Hashem's spirit rests upon the nation there and normally affixes a positive appearance on all, but when a person sins and Hashem's spirit leaves him, his clothing, house, or body are "stained" as a sign of Divine disapproval. [In this last point, Ramban follows the Kuzari discussed above.]

¹⁵ Despite this, as seen above, Abarbanel offers a fairly natural explanation of tzara'at of the clothing.  He suggests that certain materials which are worn close to a person's body might be affected by the moisture and decay of the afflicted person's skin, causing stains.

¹⁶ See also Abarbanel.

¹⁷ Though the phrase only appears by tzara'at of the house, one might learn from this case to the others.

¹⁸ See Bereshit 12:17 regarding the plague that Hashem brings on Paroh's house after his taking of Sarah and Shemot 11:1 regarding the Plague of the Firstborn.

¹⁹ See R. Hirsch, who comments:  "אין להעלות על הדעת, שהכהנים ממלאים תפקיד במסגרת שירותי התברואה".

²⁰ He brings evidence from the story of Miryam who is banished from the camp with the explanation, "וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים".

²¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor, in contrast, suggests that this is actually a measure instituted, not as punishment, but for the protection of others, as the affliction was contagious.

²² For elaboration on the Yom HaKippurim rite, see Why is the Goat Sent to Azazel.

²³ R"Y Bekhor Shor, in contrast, suggests that freeing the birds represents the freeing of the metzora, who will be able to come out of isolation after the purification process.

²⁴ See above that many sources suggest that tzara'at comes as punishment for haughtiness.

²⁵ The cedar is considered the loftiest of trees, while the hyssop is one of the smallest, as expressed in the verse which speaks of Shelomo's knowledge, "וַיְדַבֵּר עַל הָעֵצִים מִן הָאֶרֶז אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן וְעַד הָאֵזוֹב אֲשֶׁר יֹצֵא בַּקִּיר" (Melakhim II 5:13).

²⁶ He points out that Rabbinic law similarly does not support a medical understanding of the affliction, as it states that individuals were not checked during the three Pilgrimage festivals (despite the crowds which would have promoted contagion), and that one was not sent out of a city unless it had a wall from the time of Yehoshua.

²⁷ Though he does not elaborate, R. Yochanan states that tzara'at is not found in Babylonia due to their bathing in the Euphrates River and certain food and drink consumed there.  This suggests that he viewed the affliction as a natural disease which could be prevented through proper diet and hygiene.

²⁸ Throughout the ages, many have tried to find a skin disease whose symptoms match those described in Tanakh, but without total success. The identification of tzara'at as leprosy, or Hansen's disease, stems from translations in the Septuagint and Vulgate which read "lepra".  Though this probably referred only to scaly or rough skin, it was later understood as leprosy.  The identification is not likely since many of the symptoms of leprosy, including muscle weakness, loss of sensation, eye problems, and nosebleeds, have no connection to the features described in the Torah. In addition, the long incubation period and slow development of the malady do not fit with the Biblical mandate for seven day intervals to examine how the condition was progressing.  Finally, Hansen's Disease was not known in the Middle Eastern region until the era of Alexander the Great.
Other diseases that have been proposed as candidates for tzara'at include psoriasis, vitiligo, syphilis, neurodermititis and melanoma. It is also possible that the disease was one that was prevalent in ancient times, but is no longer extant today.

²⁹ Cf. Abarbanel's natural explanation for the phenomenon above.

³⁰ For more on Ralbag's general position, see Ralbag.

³¹ See the Kuzari who also connects impurity to death, writing, "אֶפְשָׁר שֶׁתִּהְיֶה הַצָּרַעַת וְהַזִּיבוּת תְּלוּיוֹת בְּטֻמְאַת הַמֵּת, כִּי הַמָּוֶת הוּא הַהֶפְסֵד הַגָּדוֹל, וְהָאֵבֶר הַמְּצֹרָע כַּמֵּת וְהַזֶּרַע הַנִּפְסָד כֵּן". 

³² Ralbag uses the language of "צורה" and "חומר" (the "form" and "material" aspects of man), which seem to be roughly equivalent to the spiritual and physical parts of man's being, or to the soul and body

³³ As such, the various levels of impurity relate to the level of the "form" that was lost. Since man's soul is more exalted than that of animals, his death causes a higher level of impurity than contact with a dead animal.

³⁴ He suggests that a menstruating woman or person who has unnatural bodily emissions (zav/zavah) are all releasing excess seed / blood which are not ripe for bearing children.  Similarly, a man who emits semen is losing the potential for engendering life.  Finally, a birthing mother, too, releases the blood which was not needed to nourish her child.  In all of these cases, there is an excess of the "material" without the "form".  Tzara'at, in contrast, causes a loss of the "material", as the body decays.  The common denominator between all these conditions is that they highlight the lowliness of the material being and supremacy of the spiritual.

³⁵ Ralbag does not explain why no other diseases similarly cause defilement. It seems that Ralbag believed that tzara'at originated from within the body rather than being caused by some external factor, and as such served to better highlight how the material aspect of man is not the beneficial one.  It is also possible that tzara'at caused more disfigurement than many other diseases, again making the physical more dominant and the need for impurity greater.

³⁶ He suggests that a similar mechanism is at work in other forms of impurity as well.  A menstruating or childbearing woman and a zav / zavah can similarly be viewed as one who is censured by Hashem because the loss of blood or seed is a marker of death, hinting that the person is deserving of death. As such, there was a natural distancing from these people, and they all (excepting the menstruating woman due to the regularity of the condition) brought sacrifices for atonement when the impurity passed.

³⁷ For similar cases in which Shadal suggests that Hashem left the nation to maintain their benign, though false, conceptions, see Shadal.  One example is developed at Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle, where Shadal suggests that Hashem encouraged belief in the "evil eye" since it, too, promoted belief in Divine providence and steered people away from hubris and excessive self-reliance.

³⁸ Impurity stemming from contact with the dead symbolizes sins against God, bodily emissions represent sins of desire, and tzara'at stands for sins against society.  As such, the people in the first category are removed only from the vicinity of the Mikdash itself, while those in the last are banished from the entire Israelite camp. As all cases require distancing one's self from the Mikdash, the institution served to remind people of their holy mission and the need to shy away from sin and its symbols.

³⁹ See Aharon's words regarding Miryam, "אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת".

⁴⁰ See the examples of Miryam, Yoav, Geichazi, and Uziyahu, discussed above. On the other hand, Tanakh does not explain why Na'aman (Melakhim II 5) or the four metzoraim of Melakhim II 7 were afflicted, allowing for the possibility that they contracted the disease naturally.  In Shemot 4, Hashem gives Moshe a sign in the form of tzara'at on his hand.  This is clearly a supernatural event, but from the simple reading of the verses it, too, is unconnected to sin.

⁴¹ He does also allow for the possibility that Divine providence is at work, either to help people find hidden treasure as suggested in Vayikra Rabbah 17:6, or to protect the owners in a case where their wall is unstable.  [Due to the laws of tzara'at they will need to break it, preventing it from later falling down on them.] Interestingly, Ralbag does not raise the commonly suggested possibility that that this could be a Divine warning to repent.  This might relate to Ralbag's understanding of individual providence, which would be merited only by an extremely righteous individual, and not by a sinner who was unworthy of a miraculous warning.

⁴² He writes, "כי הוא סיבה לכל מה שיתחדש באופן־מה, ואף על פי שאין הרע מתחדש ממנו בעצמוּת".  See Shadal who explains similarly regarding the Hardening of Paroh's Heart. He claims that the action is attributed to Hashem even though Paroh hardened his own heart because Hashem is the ultimate cause of all that happens.  He suggests that it is specifically strange events that are assigned to the hand of God, as they are incomprehensible without postulating Hashem's intervention.  Here, too, one might posit that tzara'at of the house seems miraculous (despite it really being due to natural causes) and is therefore attributed to Hashem.

⁴³ Thus he reads the banishment from the camp, destruction of the house and burning of clothing as signs of God's wrath and rebuke of the afflicted person.  The scarlet thread, cedar, and hyssop represent sins (red), both big (cedar) and small (hyssop), which need atonement.  This comes via the ritual of the two birds.  The bird which is killed acts as a substitute for the life of the metzora, while the one left alive represents the purified person.  It is first connected to his sins (the scarlet thread, cedar, and hyssop) and then placed in living water and blood as a sign of purification. Finally, it is let free as a sign that the metzora is welcome to return to the camp. Last, the sin-offerings are brought as the metzora submits himself to Hashem, requesting that Hashem's anger cease and that he no longer be distanced from Him.

⁴⁴ As R. D"Z Hoffmann views the impurity as being symbolic of sin, he, too, reads certain aspects of the process in the same manner.  Thus, he too highlights that the isolation from the camp is symbolic of having sinned against society.

⁴⁵ In line with his understanding of impurity, he claims that several parts of the ceremony are aimed at highlighting the unworthiness of the material aspects of man's being and how it is the cause of the tragedies which befall him.

⁴⁶ See Abarbanel who offers this reasoning to explain the need to first confine the clothing, though he reads the actual burning as a result of their impure state. Ralbag himself explains that the clothing are burned as a further reminder of the worthlessness of the "material".

⁴⁷ This is learned from Vayikra 14:8, וְיָשַׁב מִחוּץ לְאׇהֳלוֹ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים".

⁴⁸ A woman who has given birth must also bring a sin offering, as does a zav or zavah.