Tazria - Metzora Unity in a time of Isolation

(יז) דְּרָכֶ֥יהָ דַרְכֵי־נֹ֑עַם וְֽכָל־נְתִ֖יבוֹתֶ֣יהָ שָׁלֽוֹם׃

(17) Her ways are pleasant ways, And all her paths, peaceful.

ר"ע אומר למד תורה בילדותו ילמוד תורה בזקנותו היו לו תלמידים בילדותו יהיו לו תלמידים בזקנותו שנא' בבקר זרע את זרעך וגו' אמרו שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא מגבת עד אנטיפרס וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה

Yevamot 62b:9

Rabbi Akiva says that the verse should be understood as follows: If one studied Torah in his youth he should study more Torah in his old age; if he had students in his youth he should have additional students in his old age, as it is stated: “In the morning sow your seed, etc.” They said by way of example that Rabbi Akiva had twelve thousand pairs of students in an area of land that stretched from Gevat to Antipatris in Judea, and they all died in one period of time, because they did not treat each other with respect.

יבמות ס״ב ב:י״א

תנא כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת אמר רב חמא בר אבא ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין כולם מתו מיתה רעה מאי היא א"ר נחמן אסכרה

Yevamot 62b:11

With regard to the twelve thousand pairs of Rabbi Akiva’s students, the Gemara adds: It is taught that all of them died in the period from Passover until Shavuot. Rav Ḥama bar Abba said, and some say it was Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin: They all died a bad death. The Gemara inquires: What is it that is called a bad death? Rav Naḥman said: Diphtheria.

ויקרא י״ג:י״ד

(יד) וּבְי֨וֹם הֵרָא֥וֹת בּ֛וֹ בָּשָׂ֥ר חַ֖י יִטְמָֽא׃

Leviticus 13:14

(14) But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean;

14 But on the day that live flesh appears in it, he shall become unclean. (Chabad.org transilation)

משנה נגעים ג׳:ב׳

(ב) חָתָן שֶׁנִּרְאָה בוֹ נֶגַע, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ שִׁבְעַת יְמֵי הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, לוֹ וּלְבֵיתוֹ וְלִכְסוּתוֹ. וְכֵן בָּרֶגֶל, נוֹתְנִין לוֹ כָל יְמוֹת הָרָגֶל:

Mishnah Negaim 3:2

(2) A bridegroom on whom a nega has appeared is given the seven days of the marriage feast [in which he is not examined]; [This grace period is given to] him, and to his house and to his clothing. Similarly during a festival, one is granted exemption from inspection during all the days of the festival.

מועד קטן ז׳ ב:ט׳

למימרא דבכהן תליא מילתא אין והתניא (ויקרא יג, יד) וביום הראות בו יש יום שאתה רואה בו ויש יום שאי אתה רואה בו

Moed Katan 7b:9

§ The Gemara returns to the original dispute with regard to the priest’s examination of the symptoms of leprosy. Is this to say that the matter depends upon the discretion of the priest, i.e., the priest can decide whether to declare the affected person ritually pure or impure or whether to examine the leprous symptoms or not? The Gemara answers: Yes, and so too it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “But on the day it appears in him” (Leviticus 13:14), from which it may be inferred that there is a day when you examine the symptoms found in him and there is a day when you do not examine those symptoms.

מועד קטן ז׳ ב:י׳

מכאן אמרו חתן שנולד בו נגע נותנין לו ז' ימי המשתה לו ולביתו ולכסותו וכן ברגל נותנין לו שבעת ימי הרגל דברי רבי יהודה

Moed Katan 7b:10

From here they stated: With regard to a bridegroom upon whom leprous symptoms came into being, we give him the seven days of the wedding feast before the examination that determines ritual purity or impurity. This ruling applies whether the leprous symptoms appeared upon him, upon his house, or upon his clothing. Similarly, if the symptoms of leprosy appeared upon an individual during a pilgrimage Festival, we give him the seven days of the Festival in order to avoid causing him distress during that time; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

מועד קטן ז׳ ב:י״א

ר' אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא יד, לו) וצוה הכהן ופנו את הבית אם ממתינים לו לדבר הרשות כל שכן לדבר מצוה

Moed Katan 7b:11

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The ruling is correct, but there is no need to prove it from this verse, as a much simpler proof can be brought from a different source. It says: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest goes into it to see the plague, so that all that is in the house be not made unclean” (Leviticus 14:36). If we delay the priest’s examination of the house in order to give the owner time to remove his utensils and prevent them from contracting ritual impurity, which is merely an optional matter, all the more so should we delay his examination for a matter of mitzva, e.g., so as not to detract from the bridegroom’s joy or from the joy of a Festival.

מועד קטן ז׳ ב:י״ב

מאי בינייהו אמר אביי משמעות דורשין איכא בינייהו ורבא אמר דבר הרשות איכא בינייהו

Moed Katan 7b:12

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them, whether the source of the halakha is one verse or another? Abaye said: There is no practical difference between the opinions; rather, the interpretation of the meaning of the verses is the difference between them, as each has a different interpretation of the verse from which the other derived this halakha. And Rava said: There is in fact a practical difference between them with regard to whether or not one delays the examination of leprous symptoms found on an individual’s body for an optional matter. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one delays the examination only for the sake of a mitzva, while Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that one may delay it even for the sake of an optional matter.

מועד קטן ז׳ ב:י״ג

ורבי יהודה מהתם לא גמרינן דחידוש הוא

Moed Katan 7b:13

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, why is it not permitted to delay the priest’s examination of leprous symptoms on an individual’s body for an optional matter, just as with regard to leprous symptoms on one’s house? The Gemara answers: We do not learn a halakhic principle from there because the halakha of leprosy of houses is itself a novelty, a unique biblical law from which one cannot extrapolate to other cases.

מועד קטן ח׳ א:א׳

דהא עצים ואבנים בעלמא לא מטמאו והכא מטמאו

Moed Katan 8a:1

The Gemara explains that the halakha of leprous symptoms on a house constitutes a novelty, as by Torah law, wood and stones are generally not susceptible to ritual impurity, yet here in the case of house leprosy they are susceptible to ritual impurity.

מועד קטן ח׳ א:ב׳

ורבי אמר אצטריך דאי כתב רחמנא וביום הראות בו הוה אמינא לדבר מצוה אין לדבר הרשות לא כתב רחמנא וצוה הכהן

Moed Katan 8a:2

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: It was necessary for the Torah to state both verses: “But on the day it appears in him” (Leviticus 13:14), as well as: “Then the priest shall command that they empty the house” (Leviticus 14:36). As, if the Merciful One had written only: “But on the day it appears in him,” I would have said that for a matter of mitzva, yes, one may delay the priest’s examination of the leprous symptoms, but for an optional matter, no, one may not, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Therefore the Merciful One wrote: “Then the priest shall command,” in order to teach that one may delay his examination even for an optional matter.

מועד קטן ח׳ א:ג׳

ואי כתב רחמנא וצוה הכהן הוה אמינא הני אין דלאו טומאה דגופיה אבל טומאה דגופיה אימא מיחזא חזיא ליה צריכא

Moed Katan 8a:3

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only: “Then the priest shall command,” I would have said that for these utensils that are found in the house, yes, one may delay the priest’s examination, as this is not a case of impurity of the individual’s body but only that of his possessions; but in a case of impurity of the individual’s body, I would say that the priest must examine it immediately. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to state that even in this case, one may delay his examination.

מאור עינים

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו והובא אל הכהן וגו׳ ודרשו רז״ל מוציא רע שבעון לשון הרע נגעים באין, אבל הענין דכתיב (בראשית א׳, א׳) בראשית ברא אלהים גו׳ ודרשו רז״ל בשביל התורה ובשביל ישראל נמצא ישראל הם דבר חשוב מאוד לפני השם יתברך שבשבילם ברא כל העולמות כל הברואים והשם יתברך מקבל תענוג מכל אחד מישראל אפילו מרשע גדול (שיר השירים ו׳, ז׳) כפלח הרמון רקתך אפילו רקנים שבך מלאים מצוות כרימון וכשמדבר לשון הרע על אחד מישראל אפילו כשאומר אמת הוא מבטל תענוג הבורא יתברך כביכול ומביא בו מדת עצבות כביכול כאמור (בראשית ו׳, ו׳) ויתעצב אל לבו ומהפך מעונג לנגע לכן שכרו מדה כנגד מדה נגעים באים עליו.

Me'or Einayim

This shall be the Torah concerning the one struck with skin blanch [metzora] on the day he becomes clean. He shall be brought to the priest (Lev. 14:2), and our Sages of Blessed Memory interpreted metzora as one who speaks evil [motzi ra], for afflictions come through the sin of evil speech. But the matter is according to what is written, When God began to create etc. (Gen. 1:1), and our Sages of Blessed Memory interpreted: “For the sake of Torah and for the sake of Israel” (cf. Rashi, ad. loc.); so we find that Israel is something very important to Blessed God, since for their sake all of the Worlds and all the Creations were created. And Blessed God takes pleasure from each one of Israel, even from a greatly wicked person: “Your temples [rakatekh] are like a pomegranate (Song of Songs 6:7) – even the empty ones [reykanim] among you are as full of mitzvot as a pomegranate” (Babylonian Talmud, Berakhot 57a). And when a person speaks evil about one of Israel, even if he speaks truth, he nullifies the Blessed Creator’s pleasure (if it were possible) and causes Him sadness (if it were possible) as is stated, [And the Lord …] was saddened in to His heart (Gen. 6:6), and inverts the pleasure [oneg] into affliction [nega]; therefore his “wage” is measure for measure, affliction comes upon him.

מורה נבוכים, חלק ג' מ״ז:ד׳

(ד) אבל 'טומאת צרעת' כבר בארנו ענינה וה'חכמים ז"ל' גם כן בארוהו והודיעונו אותו. והעיקר המוסכם עליו - שהוא עונש על 'לשון הרע' ושהשינוי ההוא יתחיל בכתלים; ואם עשה תשובה - הוא המכוון ואם עמד במריו - יתפשט השינוי ההוא לכלי מטתו וכלי ביתו; ואם עמד במריו - יתפשט אל בגדיו ואחר כך לגופו. וזהו מופת מקובל באומה כמו 'מי שוטה'. ותועלת זאת האמונה מבוארת - מצורף אל היות הצרעת מתדבקת וכל בני אדם מואסים אותה ובדלים ממנה וכמעט שהוא בטבע. - אך היות טהרתה ב"עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת ושתי צפרים" כבר נודע טעמו ב'מדרשות' ואמנם אינו נאות בכונתנו ואני לא ידעתי עד היום טעם אחד מהם ולא טעם 'עץ ארז ואזוב ושני תולעת' ב'פרה אדומה'; וכן 'אגודת אזוב' שמזים בה דם ה'פסח' איני מוצא דבר שאסמוך עליו ביחוד אלה המינים:

Guide for the Perplexed, Part 3 47:4

(4) The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages have also clearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses (Lev. 14:33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained: if he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house furniture: if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation by tradition, in the same manner as the effect of the trial of a faithless wife (Num. v. ii, seq.). The good effect of this belief is evident. Leprosy is besides a contagious disease, and people almost naturally abhor it, and keep away from it. The purification was effected by cedar-wood, hyssop, scarlet thread, and two birds (Lev. 14:4); their reason is stated in various Midrashic sayings, but the explanation does not agree with our theory. I do not know at present the reason of any of these things; nor why cedar-wood, hyssop, and scarlet were used in the sacrifice of the red heifer (Num. 19:6); nor why a bundle of hyssop was commanded for the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover-lamb (Exod. 12:22). I cannot find any principle upon which to found an explanation why these particular things have been chosen.

משך חכמה:
וראה הכהן את הנגע כו' וראהו הכהן. הכפילות מבואר. ועיין תו"כ. ויתכן ע"ד רז"ל שהכוונה שיראה את הנגע אם היא ראויה לטמאנה, הוא שיש בה סימן טומאה שער לבן, וראהו הכהן הוא שיראה הכהן על האיש אם ראוי לטמאותו, הוא אם חתן נותנין לו כל ז' ימי המשתה וכן ברגל נותנין לו כל ימות הרגל שלא לערבב שמחתו ודרכיה דרכי נועם, ולכן וראהו איך הוא באיכותו אם הוא ראוי לפי הזמן לטמאותו, וזה שאמר וביום הראות יש יום שאי אתה רואה הוא ענין מצד הזמן, לא שאם לפי תכונתו צריך התחברות עם אנשים וכיו"ב אינך רואה בו, רק כשהוא ענין מצד הזמן. בינה זה.

רבנו בחיי
את התורה לכל נגע הצרעת ולנתק, ולצרעת הבגד ולבית, ולשאת ולספחת ולבהרת, “This is the legislation for every tzoraat affliction and the netek; and afflictions on the garments and the house; and of the se-eth, the sapachat, and the baheret.” Even though the tradition handed down to us concerning all these laws is the reliable one, i.e. that the sequence in which G’d afflicts potential victims is that first He afflicts their houses to give them a chance to repent, followed by afflictions on the garments hoping that the sinners will mend their ways, and that only as a last resort does G’d afflict the bodies of the sinners concerned, the fact remains that in the written Torah the order is reversed, the Torah commencing the legislation with skin disorders, followed by similar disorders on the garments followed by the houses which display signs that the walls are afflicted.
The reason the Torah chose to write the sequence which we find before us rather than the sequence our sages have told us, is that the Torah’s ways are ways of pleasantness (Proverbs 3,17). Had the Torah followed the reverse pattern of reporting these kinds of afflictions we would have read of matters going from bad to worse; this would not have made for edifying reading. As it is, the Torah first lists the most severe afflictions, proceeding to describe afflictions which are progressively easier on the victim, i.e. that only his garments or the walls of his house undergoes an affliction.