Answers to Tazria Metzora

(Tazria-)Metzora 5722

Alef.

1. a) The afflictions of the houses that lead to their being deconstructed is a means by which the new Jewish owners can discover the hidden treasures left there by the Canaanim who abandoned their homes.

b) The afflictions become a means of punishing anti-social individuals who deny having various articles when others ask to borrow them; before the house is declared impure, the contents are brought outside and everyone can then see how the owner really did possess the things that he had previously denied having.

2.    The beginning of 14:34 where there is an emphasis upon God Giving the Jews the land of Canaan as an inheritance would be more in keeping with an interpretation that the houses that they will come to possess will further strengthen their inheritance when they discover hidden treasures within, than to warn them that their sins are going to result in the houses being condemned and their property exposed. Therefore not only will HaShem Give them the land, He will also Give them treasure.

3.    By the other forms of skin conditions, the phrases “Ki Yihyeh” or “Ki Tihyeh” (when it will be) are used: 13:2, 9, 18, 24, 29, 38, Similarly with regard to clothing and furniture, the Tora states, (v. 47-8) “Ki Yihyeh” However, by the plague affecting the house, the language is “VeNatati Nega Tzora’at” (and I will Cause a plague of Tzora’at). The more personal nature and the inevitability of the language is what R. Yehuda might be picking up on.

4.    MaLBIM explains that when the verb “N-T-N” is used in connection with a Divine Decree, it always has a good purpose, even if in the short term it appears like a plague and therefore a punishment. The verse in II Shmuel 7:14, albeit mentioning plagues, says at the outset that the relationship between God and His People is that of a father and son. Even if a father punishes a son, it is out of a sense of love and desire to correct the shortcomings of the son for the long-term.

Beit.

1.    V. 35 could have simply served the purpose of stating that the Kohen must be summoned in order to inspect the house and determine if Tzora’at has broken out or not. And such a summons could have been carried out by anyone. Since the Tora goes out of its way to state that the owner of the house must go to  make the request, it implies that there is some special reason why specifically he must interact with the Kohen even before the latter comes to inspect the house’s walls. The second citation in the Sifra provides the rationale, i.e., that the Kohen, in addition to technically inspecting the house, is to give Mussar to the house’s owner from the perspective that the existence of Tzora’at implies some sort of sinful behavior has taken place, specifically Lashon HaRa, as derived from the case of Miriam in BaMidbar 12,  and ought to be rectified.

2.    The language of “U’Ba” (and he will come) implies that he has to be able to traverse the distance between the house and the Kohen. Someone who is elderly or infirm will not be able to do so and therefore would be precluded from such a requirement. (The Kohen could still give such individuals Mussar once he arrives at the house. However, someone might be more vulnerable and open to rebuke when given it in unfamiliar surroundings, particular on the Kohen’s home turf.)

3.    “H-G-I-D” appears to deal with technical information, i.e., how exactly did this condition develop, where is it, what does it look like, etc. “A-M-R” is associated with a personal discussion, where instead of the question “how,” what is not being discussed is “why”? What caused this condition to develop?

4.    It would appear that “Leimor” (saying) is completely superfluous in this verse and therefore must be accounted for in some other way, as the MaLBIM states should be done for other verses in which “Leimor” is superfluous. Consequently, it would appear that the principle, “Im Eino Inyan LeInyano, Tenaihu LeInyan Acher” (if it does not seem to serve its own immediate purpose, apply it to some other purpose) should be invoked, leading to the conclusion that “Leimor” is not referring to something that is said to the Kohen, but rather something that the Kohen says in response to what he has just been told.

5.    Not only is the story of Miriam a paradigm for Tzora’at being associated with Lashon HaRa (BaMidbar 12 along with Devarim 24:9), but also the story of the signs Given to Moshe in order to convince the people that he has been sent by God. In Shemot 4:6-7 whereby Moshe gets Tzora’at temporarily, this is understood by one approach in the Midrash as a result of what he said in Shemot 4:1, “And they (the Jewish people) will not believe me…” thus casting aspersions on their level of belief and trust in HaShem.

6.    One might claim that as long as the subject of the evil speech is not aware of what has been said, it is relatively less harmful and injurious; consequently, to say something directly in the presence of the party being discussed will by definition cause more hurt and pain.

Gimel.
        It would seem that the imagery of having one’s house threatened first with partial and then with full destruction leading to homelessness and disorientation is a situation so disconcerting that it inspires thoughts of various aspects of Jewish history past, present and future