💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Or%20HaChaim%20on%20Leviti… captured on 2024-05-10 at 13:00:13. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
34 [1] ** כי תבאו…ונתתי נגע צרעת, When you come to the land…and I will give a plague of "leprosy," etc.** How can one describe the plague of "leprosy" breaking out on one's house as good news so that the Torah describes it as a gift from G'd? Why did the Torah not merely write: "when the walls of your houses develop certain stains, etc." in the same way as the Torah described such a skin disease in 13,9? *Vayikra Rabbah* 17,6 was conscious of this and explained that the Canaanites who heard that the Israelites were approaching hid their valuables inside the walls of their houses. When the walls would display signs of "leprosy," the Jewish owner would investigate and discover the hidden treasure. This is homiletics, of course. Rabbi Levy explains in that same *Midrash* that when G'd wishes to reprove us He does not immediately inflict pain on our bodies, but He first afflicts our houses, and in the event this does not help He afflicts our clothing. Only if we fail to respond to these two warnings does G'd inflict the plague on our bodies, i.e. our skin. When viewed in this light the affliction on the house is indeed a "gift" i.e. a demonstration of G'd's loving concern for us.
[2] Why then did the Torah list the respective plagues on man, his clothing, and his house, in the reverse order of what Rabbi Levy would have us believe? I have explained this previously. At the time the legislation was revealed the Israelites had not yet entered the Holy Land and therefore G'd could not warn the guilty individual by smiting his house first. The reason the Torah introduced this paragraph with the words: "when you come to the land, etc." is to tell us that as of that time the order of afflictions would be reversed and G'd would first strike the house of the guilty person whom He wanted to warn to mend his social behaviour. You may still ask why the Torah does not list the "leprosy" on one's clothing before the "leprosy" on one's skin, seeing that everyone wore clothing at the time this legislation was revealed? G'd could have demonstrated His loving concern for the guilty by first smiting his clothing and the Torah describing this as the first example of such a נגע צרעת? It appears that the reason the Torah chose to position the legislation of "leprosy" on one's clothing in between the legislation of skin disorders and "leprous-like stains" on the walls of one's house, is because there are some common denominators between the stains on the house and on the clothing on one side, and between the stains on the clothing and on the skin on the other side. The minimum size of a נגע צרעת on one's skin and the size of such a נגע צרעת on one's clothing is identical, whereas the minimum size of that plague on a house to be considered as טמא is twice that of people or clothing. On the other hand, the plague on both clothing and houses is characterised by a greenish colour, whereas the skin disorder which afflicts man is of some kind of whitish shade.
[3] Furthermore, we need to understand why the Torah did not complete the laws pertaining to the plague on people before introducing the legislation about a plague afflicting one's clothing. The reason cannot be that the Torah wanted to group together all the laws of ritual impurity resulting from such stains before describing the procedures leading to their purification. If that had been the Torah's intention why did it not also describe the impurity arising from a plague on houses before commencing with the laws of purification? I think it is quite obvious that the unusual positioning of the law of the plague on one's clothing right in the middle of the legislation concerning "leprous" skin, is proof that the Torah wanted to teach that G'd first afflicts man's garments before afflicting man himself. The Torah made plain by the positioning of the נגע בגדים that it too was caused by man's sinful conduct. When the Torah describes the purification rites after having spelled out the law about the respective ritual impurity the garments conferred on the sinful man who wears them, it is clear that had man responded to the call to repentance of the plague on his garments, he would not now also need to purify himself from the effects of the נגע צרעת on his skin.
[4] Another reason the Torah did not first mention the affliction on man's garments is that had it done so we would have assumed that a plague on one's garments indicates guilt of a minor nature, whereas a plague on one's skin is indicative of a sin of a more serious nature, rather than that both plagues are a punishment for the same sin, the skin-disease being a punishment for lack of sensitivity to the message G'd sent to the wearer by afflicting his clothing.
Version: Or Hachayim, trans. Eliyahu Munk
Source: http://www.urimpublications.com/or-hachayim-commentary-on-the-torah-5-vols.html
License: CC-BY