86
The Jewish Home | MARCH 31, 2022
From the Fire Parshas Tazria
Looking Forward Versus Looking Back by rav Moshe Weinberger Adapted for publication by Binyomin Wolf
26
OctOber 29, 2015 | the Jewish Home
t
he laws of tzara’as – which some translate as “leprosy” – are very difficult to understand. When the pasuk (Vayikra 13:2) says, “When a person has a se’es, sapachas, or baheres on his skin, and it is a blemish of rzara’as...,” it is difficult to understand exactly what these afflictions are. One thing that we see, however, from the Mishnayos explaining rzara’as is that a major sign of the impurity of tzara’as is the color white. This seems very unusual. Usually, the color white is associated with purity, not impurity. The pasuk in Yeshaya (1:18) says, “If your sins are like scarlet, I will whiten them like snow, and if they are red like crimson, they will be [as white as] wool.” Similarly, on Yom Kippur (Yuma 39a), when the “gold ribbon turned
white,” it was a sign that the Jewish people were forgiven. We see, therefore, that the color white is usually associated with innocence and purity, not impurity. Why, then, is the color white a sign of impurity for a Metzora, one afflicted with tzara’as? The Sefer Yetzira (2:7) points out that the word for the affliction of tzara’as, “negah,” has the same letters as the word “oneg,” pleasure or delight. It says that “there is nothing higher than ‘oneg,’ delight, and there is nothing lower than ‘negah,’ the affliction of tzara’as.” How do we see this? Even a person who is tamei because of tumas meis, contact with a dead body, is allowed to live in the community and he can even ascend to Har Habayis, although he may not enter the Bais Hamikdash. A Metzorah, on
the other hand, may not even live in the community. He must dwell alone outside the city. We see, therefore, that there is nothing lower than “negah,” the affliction of tzara’as. As the Sefer Yetzira explained, the letters of the words for affliction, a “negah,” and for “oneg,” delight are the same. The only difference between the two words is the placement of the letter ayin. In the word “negah,” the “ayin” is at the end of the word, and in the word “oneg,” the “ayin” is at the beginning of the word. This observation is also hinted at in the pasuk (Vayikra 13:25), which discusses the law of a garment afflicted with tzara’as which had been quarantined by the kohein but which retained its appearance even after the seven-day quarantine peri-
od. It says, “The affliction did not change its appearance, aino.” The word for “appearance, aino” can also refer to the Hebrew letter “ayin.” The pasuk is therefore saying that the garment was still afflicted with tzara’as because its owner did not “change” the “ayin” by moving it from the end of the word “negah” to the beginning of the word to transform his affliction into the delight of “oneg.” At the beginning of the parsha, Rashi quotes part of a medrash (Vayikra Raba 14:1) to answer the implicit question, “Why are does the Torah teach the laws of purity and impurity relating to animals at the end of last week’s parsha before the laws of human purity and impurity in this week’s parsha?” The medrash quotes the pasuk in Tehillim (139:5) homiletically
