Tzara'at/2/en

Tzaraat

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

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, 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 13About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch

Natural or supernatural? The Kuzari,¹ Rambam,² Ramban³ and R. Hirsch⁴ suggest that the malady is totally supernatural in nature, while R"Y Behor Shor, Abarbanel and Seforno imply that, despite its being Divinely afflicted, tzara'at of the body⁵ might nonetheless be a naturally occurring disease.⁶

For which sins? These sources disagree regarding which sins cause a person to be plagued with tzara'at, but most of them speak of slander⁷ and/or haughtiness.⁸  Several of the  Midrashic sources⁹ include entire lists of potential sins,¹⁰ 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– Miriam is Divinely struck with tzara'at for speaking against Moshe.
• Shemuel II 3 – After killing Avner against David's wishes, Yoav is cursed that he shall be afflicted with tzara'at.
• Melakhim II 5 – Gechazi is plagued by tzara'at upon the word of Elisha after he disobeys the prophet.
• Divrei HaYamim II 26 – King Uziyahu is punished with tzara'at for his haughtiness in bringing the ketoret.

From this list, it seems that the common denominator between the various sins is a rebellion against authority.¹¹

Comparison to tzara'at of the house and clothing – According to many of these sources,¹² the afflictions brought on a person's clothing and house are meant to serve as warnings of sin, to lead the person to repent before he himself is bodily afflicted.¹³  Abarbanel adds that the obvious supernatural nature of the plague on the house comes to teach that the others as well are Divine and providential.¹⁴

"וְנָתַתִּי נֶגַע צָרַעַת" – Ramban¹⁵ points out that the language of "וְנָתַתִּי" suggests that Hashem is actively bringing the plague and that it cannot be attributed to natural causes.¹⁶ R. Hirsch adds that the word "נֶגַע" itself has the specific connotation of a plague brought by Divine decree,¹⁷ rather than an ordinary disease.

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 priest – The afflicted person is checked by a priest rather than a doctor since this is a cultic issue of sin and impurity rather than natural disease.¹⁸  Seforno adds that the priest will both push the person to reflect on his deeds and pray for him as well.

Aspects of the purification process – These sources understand many aspects of the purification process as correctives to, or punishment for sin:

• 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, so too he he is separated from society. Rav Hirsch, instead, suggests that the isolation serves to shame the person into self reflection¹⁹ and correction of his negative social behavior.²⁰
• Torn clothing and loose hair - Rashi, R"Y Bekhor Shor and Abarbanel point out that these are signs of mourning. Abarbanel explains that the metzora must mourn his wayward ways that led to the affliction, while R"Y Bekhor Shor claims that he is mourning his rejection by Hashem.

• Sending away of birds – Ramban compares the birds to the goat that is sent to Azazel as part of the purification process of Yom HaKippurim, suggesting that in both cases their role is to carry away the people's sins.  Bavli Arakhin explains that birds were chosen specifically because they chirp, thereby reminding the person of his sin of speaking about others.²¹ 
• Cedar and hyssop – Rashi and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor suggest that these symbolize the fact that the person who had been haughty²² is now humbled and brought low.²³
• Scarlet thread – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that this represents sin, as Yeshayahu says, "אִם יִהְיוּ חֲטָאֵיכֶם כַּשָּׁנִים כַּשֶּׁלֶג יַלְבִּינוּ".
• אשם and חטאת– These offerings are brought as part of the process of atonement.

Why does tzara'at cause impurity?

Natural Disease

Tzaraat is a natural disease which can strike a person regardless of sin.

Sources:perhaps Bavli KetubotKetubot 77bAbout the Bavli, RalbagVayikra 13:5About 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,²⁴ sufficing with the claim that it was a malady that could have affected anyone. 

Why does it  cause impurity?

• Shadal suggests that in ancient times, people assumed that that the skin changes (and stained clothing and walls) 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.  Since this attitude 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.²⁵
• R. Hoffmann suggests that all the various categories of impurity are meant to be  symbolic of (but not a consequence of) sin.²⁶  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, and thus with sin.]

Tzara'at of the house and clothing

Connection to other forms of impurity – As all the other cases of impurity (those stemming from bodily emissions, contact with the dead and birth) 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.

Biblical cases – In most cases in Tanakh where a person is afflicted with tzara'at, it appears to be Divinely sent as punishment.²⁷ These sources might explain that Hashem was simply using an otherwise natural disease as a punishment, just as elsewhere he afflicts people with blindness or plague.

Divine providence

Aspects of the purification process

• Isolation
• Chatat and asham
• Sending away of birds
• Ezov
• Seven day waiting periods

Role of kohen

¹ Rabbi 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 Tumat 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, it appears that he believes that the other forms of tzara'at  are similarly metaphysical phenomena.

⁴ R. Hirsch speaks at length 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 counterintuitive if the process was 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 not be logical.

⁵ 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.

⁶ As such, these latter commentators explain certain aspects of the purification process to be medically related.  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 his wife since it is not healthy for recovery.

⁷ 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 learn this from Miriam who is struck by tzaraat after speaking against Moshe. Rambam similarly points to Devarim 24:8-9 where the Torah points to Miriam specifically when warning about the malady.

⁸ 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.

⁹ See Bavli Arakhin 16a, Vayikra Rabbah 17:3, Bemidbar Rabbah 7:5 and Tanchuma Metzora 4.

¹⁰ These range from 7 to 11 and more items. The various sources attempt to link each suggestion with a case in Tanakh where someone sinned 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 tzaraat.

¹¹ See Menachem Ben-Yashar, "נגע הצרעת – על שום מה", who elaborates on this point.  He suggests that when Hashem has Moshe's hand be afflicted in Shemot 4:1-7, this, too, might stem from a similar rebellion against authority, his hesitation to heed Hashem's command and embark on His mission.  Similarly, though the text never states the reason for the tzara'at of Naaman (Melakhim II 5) or the 4 metzoraim (Melakhim II 7), both sets of characters lead to a demonstration of the power of the prophet and his word. See Elisha's statement, "יָבֹא נָא אֵלַי וְיֵדַע כִּי יֵשׁ נָבִיא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל".

¹² See Tosefta Negaim, Vayikra Rabbah, Tanchuma, R. Yehuda HaLevi, Rambam, Abarbanel and Seforno.

¹³ Ramban explains similarly but claims that these forms of the affliction only occur in Israel (as it says by tzaraat of the house, "כִּי תָבֹאוּ אֶל אֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן").  He, following the Kuzari, 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.

¹⁴ 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 stench of the afflicted person's skin, causing stains.

¹⁵ See also Abarbanel.

¹⁶ Though the phrase only appears by tzaraat of the house, one might learn from this case to the others.

¹⁷ 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 Firstborns.

¹⁸ See R. Hirsch, who comments, "אין להעלות על הדעת, שהכהנים ממלאים תפקיד במסגרת "שירותי התברואה.

¹⁹ He brings evidence from the story of Miriam who is banished from the camp with the explanation, "וְאָבִיהָ יָרֹק יָרַק בְּפָנֶיהָ הֲלֹא תִכָּלֵם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים".

²⁰ 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.

²¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor, in contrast, suggests that freeing the birds represents the freeing of the metzora, who after the purification process will be able to come out of isolation.

²² See above that many sources suggest that tzaraat comes as punishment for haughtiness.

²³ The cedar is considered the loftiest of trees and the hyssop, one of the samllest, as expressed in the verse which speaks of Shelomo's knowldege, " וַיְדַבֵּר עַל הָעֵצִים מִן הָאֶרֶז אֲשֶׁר בַּלְּבָנוֹן וְעַד הָאֵזוֹב אֲשֶׁר יֹצֵא בַּקִּיר" (Melakhim II 5:13).

²⁴ 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 disease's markers, including muscle weakness and loss of sensation, eye problems, nosebleeds and the long incubation period and slow development of the malady, have no connection to the symptoms descried in Vayikra. Moreover, the disease was not known in the Middle Eastern  region until the time period 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 prevalent in ancient times, but no is longer extant today.

²⁵ For similar cases in which Shadal suggests that Hashem left the nation to continue in their benign though false conceptions, see About Shadal.  One example is developed at Half Shekels – For Census or Tabernacle?.

²⁶ 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 Israelite camp altogether.

²⁷ See the examples of Miriam, Yoav, Gechazi, and Uziyahu, discussed above.  Tanakh does not explain why Naaman or the 4 metzoarim 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 is unconnected to sin.