Parashat Sazria

There are several differences between the Tzara’as that appears on people and the Tzara’as that appears on clothing. On people, the Tzara’as must be white; on clothing, it must be either bright red or bright green. A spot of healthy skin encircled by Tzara’as signifies impurity, whereas a spot of clean fabric encircled by Tzara’as signifies nothing. People with Tzara’as are exiled from their homes, whereas clothing with Tzara’as is burned. These three basic examples illustrate how the Tzara’as of people and of clothing differ in terms of their inherent characteristics, their Simanim, and their subsequent treatment.

I would like to focus on one particular difference. When a Nega first appears on a person’s skin and does not bear any of the requisite Simanim (namely that it turns two hairs white, spreads, or encircles healthy skin) by which the Kohein can pronounce it Tamei, the Kohein quarantines the person for up to two weeks. If after two weeks the Nega remains unchanged and does not develop Simanim, the Kohein declares the man Tahor and removes him from quarantine. Similarly, the inherent green or red blotch on clothing does not itself constitute Tzara’as; rather, the Kohein quarantines the clothing for two weeks while he waits for the Nega to spread. However, in the case of clothing, should the Nega remain unchanged after two weeks, the Kohein must declare the entire garment Tamei and burn it.

And the Kohein sees after the Nega is laundered [one week earlier], and behold, the Nega has not changed its appearance nor has the Nega spread. It is Tamei, burn it in the fire, [for] it is a Pichesses in either his new garments or old garments.

VaYikra 13:55

The pasuk is very clear about one fact; if the Nega does not change, it is Tamei. Do keep in mind that this pasuk speaks exclusively of a Nega after two weeks of quarantine. Earlier pasukim in the parasha (13:51-54) explain that if the Nega spreads after one week of quarantine, the garment is immediately burned, otherwise the garment is laundered and put away for a second week. (Presumably, if the Nega fades or disappears after one week, the garment would not require further quarantine, but those laws are only implied by these pasukim.)

But this pasuk is also very vague, for it fails to explicitly define what “change” the Nega doesn’t undergo. Many commentaries understand this “change” as the Nega’s magical transformation of color, either from red to green or vice versa. The pasuk also fails to instruct what the Kohein must do should the Nega change after a second week of quarantine. All in all, these pasukim are rather unclear, so Rashi, loosely quoting the Sifra, fills in a few details.

“The Nega has not changed its appearance,” [meaning] the Nega has not dimmed.

“Nor has the Nega spread.” We hear that a Nega that does not change or spread is Tamei, all the more so [a Nega that] does not change and does spread [is Tamei]. [But] I do not know what [the Kohein should] do if [the Nega] changes and does not spread. Therefore, the pasuk states “And he quarantines the Nega,” [implying that the Nega must be quarantined] nonetheless. So says Rabbi Yehuda. The Chachamim say… as is stated in Toras Kohanim, and I hint to it here so as to resolve the pasuk to its simple meaning.

Rashi, VaYikra 13:55

Rashi, for starters, does not interpret the Nega’s change in appearance as a sudden transformation of color. According to Rashi, this pasuk has nothing to do with such a scenario but rather deals with the more basic issue of a Nega that does or does not fade. Rashi’s interpretation of “changing” as dimming carries over to his interpretation of the Breissa in Toras Kohanim; therefore, the Breisa too avoids any discussion of complicated scenarios where the Nega changes color and instead focuses on the more fundamental issues of spreading and dimming, the size and brightness of the Nega. It’s no surprise Rashi claims to resolve this pasuk to its simple meaning.

However, there are several glaring difficulties with Rashi’s resolution to the pasuk. Most notably, the very next pasuk in the parasha (13:56) explicitly instructs the Kohein to rip the afflicted fabric off of the garment should the Nega dim after two weeks. If the term “change” in pasuk 55 refers to this act of dimming, how then can Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim debate what the Kohein should do when the Nega changes? The halacha should be clear! And yet, neither Rabbi Yehuda nor the Chachamim instruct to tear the garment. Rabbi Yehuda says to quarantine it and the Chachamim say to burn it. How then does Rashi understand this Machlokes in light of pasuk 56?

Rashi claims to “hint to” the Breissa in Toras Kohanim, but not quote it, perhaps for two reasons. First of all, he does not quote the Chachamim’s opinion along with Rabbi Yehuda’s. Second, he adds in a few thoughts of his own. The Breissa never mentions “all the more so [a Nega that] does not change and does spread [is Tamei];” this is purely commentary. What does Rashi gain by amending to the Breissa, especially if he admits that his own comments are obvious and known through Kal ViChomer? Indeed, Rashi’s Kal ViChomer is an odd albeit welcome clarification to our vague pasuk, but once Rashi is willing to comment on this case, why does he only comment on the more obvious of two unknown cases? Neither the pasuk nor the Breissa says a word about a Nega that both spreads and dims, and Rashi leaves us without even the tools to determine the halacha in such a case.

The Gur Aryeh addresses our first question on Rashi with a very short comment. He explains that the “change” Rashi defines is specifically that the Nega “did not change at all,” that the spot “retained its brightness in full.” The Nachalas Yaakov, buiding off this comment (with support from the position of the Ra”Sh MiShantz in the eleventh perek of Meseches Negaim) suggests that there are two levels of greenness and redness: deep colors, and regular colors. Anything dimmer than a deep color is a regular color and the pasuk (13:56) calls this “dimmed.” The pasuk (13:58) defines anything dimmer than even a regular color as “removed.” But as several shades of green and red exist, several shades of deep green and deep red also exist, so the pasuk must also define a Nega that dims a little from its original brightness but not enough to constitute a “regular” colored Nega. The “change” Rashi defines is a change in shade, specifically to a dimmer shade, but the Nega remains an overall deep color.

Now we see how the halachos addressed in the Breissa are very different from the case addressed in pasuk 56. In pasuk 56, the Nega “dims,” meaning it is no longer a deep color altogether. Therefore, the Kohein does not burn the garment, nor does he quarantine it; instead, he tears out the afflicted part and the rest is pronounced Tahor. But in the Breissa, the Nega “changes,” meaning it is still a deep color and the Kohein cannot pronounce the garment Tahor.

“It is a Pichesses,” a language [suggestive] of a pit, like “in one of the potholes” (Shmuel II 17). Meaning, the Nega is [physically] sunken lower [into the garment].

Rashi, VaYikra 13:55

The act of laundering the garment after one week of quarantine won’t necessarily remove the spot, even if it’s not Tzara’as. It also won’t necessarily dim the overall brightness of the spot. But laundering should at least fade the spot, even if ever so slightly. A Nega that remains in its full brightness is clearly unnatural. The Torah therefore calls it a Pichesses, meaning that the stain does not start on the surface of the garment and then work its way into the fabric but rather emanates from within the fabric; therefore, laundering the spot has no effect on the color of the stain.

This retention of color is unnatural, like the spreading of the stain. Rashi applies a Kal ViChomer to the case of a Nega that spreads but not dims because both acts are unnatural, and if one unnatural occurrence is enough to warrant that the Kohein burn the garment, then two unnatural occurrences will logically deserve the same treatment. Without stating the scenario, it is clear from Rashi’s application of reasoning here that a spot that spreads and also dims is still Tamei, for it too undergoes an unnatural process. (Such a spot is called Porachas, not Pichesses, but is equally Tamei, as described in pasuk 51).

This leaves one unresolved case. After two weeks of quarantine, if the Nega retains a deep hue but reacts naturally to the process of laundering and does not spread, then the Kohein is still as uncertain as he was a week earlier as to whether this spot is Tzara’as or not. What then should he do? Rabbi Yehuda indefinitely quarantines the garment, and the Chachamim insist on burning it. Both opinions make sense. Rabbi Yehuda refuses to burn it because he cannot warrant such recourse without a proper Siman, whereas the Chachamim view the relative brightness of the spot itself as reason enough to burn the garment (since the Torah insists on no more than two categories of redness and greenness, clearly anything that is deep red or deep green should be treated as “the same.”)

Perhaps Rashi only quotes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion within the Machlokes because only Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion helps to elucidate the simple understanding of the pasuk. The Chachamim are forced to pair the slightly dimmed spot back into the case addressed in the pasuk, making it very difficult to really determine what whether “change” is itself a factor the Kohein must analyze when inspecting the Nega. Rabbi Yehuda, on the other hand, distinguishes the case of the “changed” Nega from the case in our pasuk; therefore, his opinion proves that “change,” whatever it is, plays a significant factor within the determination of whether the Nega is Tamei or Tahor.

In conclusion, it is clear why an unchanged Nega on a garment is Tamei, whereas the unchanged Nega on a person is Tahor. Once the Kohein launders the garment, the fact that the Nega remains unchanged is itself an unnatural occurrence and is itself a Siman for Tumah. However, blemishes on a person’s body (that might be mistaken for Tzara’as but aren’t) often emanate from underneath the skin; naturally, no matter how hard one scrubs his bruise, he would never expect it to dim in color. If anything, he would only bruise the flesh more! Therefore, the permanence of the Nega is by no means a Siman for Tumah and after two weeks the Kohein must declare the man Tahor. However, the moment the Nega spreads on his skin, turns hairs white, or encircles healthy flesh, the spot takes on a very unnatural quality, thereby proving its Tumah.

As different as the Tzara’as of clothing and people may be, we can still group them in the same category because of their unnatural origins. Whether white or red, exiled or burned, these spots and stains are markers of more than just a physical disease; they directly relay a message from above.