The tipping point between Tahara and Tuma with regard to Tzora’at.
In the continuation of R. Adin Steinsaltz’ essay on Parashat Tazria (Talks on the Parasha, Shefa-Maggid, Jerusalem, 2015, pp. 216-26), he points out that ritual impurity is associated with the condition affecting a person’s possessions or person only when the imperfection spreads. If it remains stable, let alone recedes, then the individual or object retains his/its ritual purity.
E.g., VaYikra 13:2-8
2 When a man shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising, or a scab, or a bright spot, and it become in the skin of his flesh the plague of Tzora’at, then he shall be brought unto Aharon the priest, or unto one of his sons the priests. 3 And the priest shall look upon the plague in the skin of the flesh; and if the hair in the plague be turned white, and the appearance of the plague be deeper than the skin of his flesh, it is the plague of Tzora’at; and the priest shall look on him, and pronounce him unclean. 4 And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and the hair thereof be not turned white, then the priest shall shut up him that hath the plague seven days. 5 And the priest shall look on him the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague stay in its appearance, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more. 6 And the priest shall look on him again the seventh day; and, behold, if the plague be dim, and the plague be not spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him clean: it is a scab; and he shall wash his clothes, and be clean. 7 But if the scab spread abroad in the skin, after that he hath shown himself to the priest for his cleansing, he shall show himself to the priest again. 8 And the priest shall look, and, behold, if the scab be spread in the skin, then the priest shall pronounce him unclean: it is Tzora’at.
R. Steinsaltz posits that the spread of this condition that clearly is not a natural, biological state—the fact that it can effect even inanimate objects such as furniture and walls of houses (see Ibid. 13:47 ff.; 14:34 ff.) demonstrates that this is a supernatural state of affairs–indicates that the individual has not taken to heart the prophetic message, I.e., there is something regarding his behavior that is objectionable to God and must be improved, that is apparently being shared with him.
The persistence and spread of Tzora’at reflects the stricken individual’s failure to take to heart the critique of some aspect of his behavior that is being communicated to him.
R. Steinsaltz assumes that HaShem will Send an individual a series of signs each surpassing the previous one in severity, until finally action is taken to address what is apparently out of order. Naturally if and when individual responds will be entirely dependent upon that person and his preparedness to address the implications of what is occurring. Consequently, there are cases in the bible reflecting both extremes, i.e., those whose Tzora’at has a terminal point, after which the individual can get on with his/her life, e.g.:
BaMidbar 12: 1-2, 10, 14-5
1 And Miriam and Aharon spoke (although both of Moshe’s siblings are mentioned, the verb that introduces this verse is “VaTedaber”, the feminine singular declension, leading the biblical commentators to conclude that Miriam was the one who initiated the conversation and did the talking, resulting in her being punished more severely than her brother Aharon, who passively participated by listening to his sister’s rant) against Moshe because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman. 2 And they said: Hath the LORD indeed spoken only with Moshe? Hath He not spoken also with us? And the LORD heard it… 10 And when the cloud was removed from over the Tent, behold, Miriam was affected with Tzora’at, as white as snow; and Aharon looked upon Miriam; and, behold, she was suffering from Tzora’at… 14 And the LORD Said unto Moshe: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days? Let her be shut up without the camp seven days, and after that she shall be brought in again. 15 And Miriam was shut up without the camp seven days; and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in again.
as opposed to an anecdote where the Metzora remains in that state until the end of his life:
II Divrei HaYamim 26:16-21
16 But when he (Uzia) was strong, his heart was lifted up so that he did corruptly, and he trespassed against the LORD his God; for he went into the Temple of the LORD to burn incense upon the altar of incense. 17 And Azaria the Priest went in after him, and with him fourscore Priests of the LORD, that were valiant men; 18 And they withstood Uzia the king, and said unto him: It pertaineth not unto thee, Uzia, to burn incense unto the LORD, but to the Priests the sons of Aharon that are consecrated it pertaineth to burn incense; go out of the sanctuary; for thou hast trespassed; neither shall it be for thy honor from the LORD God. 19 Then Uzia was wroth; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense; and while he was wroth with the priests, the Tzora’at broke forth in his forehead before the priests in the House of the LORD, beside the Altar of Incense. 20 And Azaria the Chief Priest, and all the Priests, looked upon him, and, behold, he suffered from Tzora’at on his forehead, and they thrust him out quickly from thence; yea, himself made haste also to go out, because the LORD had Smitten him. 21 And Uzia the king was a Metzora unto the day of his death, and dwelt in a house set apart, being a Metzora; for he was cut off from the House of the LORD; and Yotam his son was over the king’s house, judging the people of the land.
Indications to sinners that grow in intensity in order to capture their attention and precipitate acts of repentance.
While the stories of Miriam and Uzia cited above demonstrate a one-time cause-and-effect relationship between sin and Tzora’at, R. Steinsaltz extrapolates from the laws of Tzora’at listed in VaYikra regarding the gradual spread of Tzora’at an ever-increasing series of phenomena designed to finally bring a transgressor to his senses. Such an understanding would conceive of Tzora’at as serving the same purpose for a particular individual as do other sequences of situations whose juxtaposition in the Tora suggest that what happens to at least some people over the course of their lives (see “Tzora’at Doesn’t Effect Just Anybody”) is a series of ever-intensifying omens that are intended to cause these individuals to radically change their behaviors:
Kiddushin 20a
As it is taught in a Baraita that Rabbi Yosi, son of Rabbi Chanina, says:
1) Come and see how harsh is the violation of even a hint of the Sabbatical Year. If a person has commercial dealings with Sabbatical-Year produce, which is prohibited, ultimately he will become so poor that he will have to sell his movable property, as it is stated: (VaYikra 25:13) “In this Jubilee Year you shall return every man to his land”, and juxtaposed to it is the verse: (Ibid. 14) “And if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor’s hand”, which is referring to an item acquired by passing it from hand to hand. This teaches that if one sins with regard to the Jubilee Year or the Sabbatical Year, which have many identical Halachot, he will eventually have to sell his movable property.
2) If one does not sense that he is being punished and does not repent, ultimately, he will have to sell his fields, as it is stated in an adjacent verse: (Ibid. 25) “If your brother grows poor and sells of his ancestral land”.
3) If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will have to sell his house, as it is stated: (Ibid. 29) “And if a man sells a dwelling-house in a walled city” …
4) If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, his poverty will increase until he sells his daughter, as it is stated: (Shemot 21:7) “And when a man sells his daughter as a maidservant”.
And even though “his daughter” is not written with regard to that matter in VaYikra 25 but in Shemot, nevertheless, it teaches us this principle: A person will sell his daughter rather than borrow with interest. What is the reason for this? His daughter can occasionally deduct money from her debt and use it to leave her master—see Mishna Kiddushim 1:2– but this interest continuously increases.
5) If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to borrow with interest, as it is stated: (VaYikra 25:35) “And if your brother grows poor and his means fails with you”, and juxtaposed to it is the verse: (Ibid. 36) “Take no usury or interest from him”.
6) If no move toward repentance comes to his hand, he will eventually need to sell himself, as it is stated: (Ibid. 39) “And if your brother grows poor with you and sells himself to you”
7) Not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will even be sold to a stranger, as it is stated: (Ibid. 47) “And sells himself to a stranger (Ger)”
8) And this sale to a Ger is not referring to a sale to a righteous convert (Ger Tzedek), but even to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide Mitzvot (Ger Toshav), as it is stated: (Ibid. 47) “And sells himself to a stranger who is a settler (Ger Toshav)”.
9) With regard to the continuation of the verse, “or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” the Gemara expounds: “A stranger’s family”; this is a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile (who does not observe the seven Noachide Commandments).
10) When it says: “To an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship.
Devarim 21:10-1, 15, 18, 22
a) 10 When thou goest forth to battle against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God delivereth them into thy hands, and thou carriest them away captive, 11 And seest among the captives a woman of goodly form, and thou hast a desire unto her, and wouldest take her to thee to wife; 12 then thou shalt bring her home to thy house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails…
b) 15 If a man have two wives, the one beloved, and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated…;
c) 18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them…
d) 22 And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree…
RaShI on Devarim 21:10 s.v. VeLakachta Lecha LeIsha
The Tora was taking into account the temptations of the Evil Inclination (i.e., marrying a war captive to whom you are attracted is not an ideal. However, if you are insistent to do so, there is a protocol to which you must adhere.) Because if the Holy One Blessed Be He, does not Make her permitted, the conqueror will “marry” in a prohibited manner. But if he does marry her, in the end he will hate her (b), as it states (immediately) afterwards: (Devarim 21:15) “If a man have two wives…”, and in the end, he will have with her a stubborn and rebellious son (c). For this reason, these Parashiot are linked together.
Ibid. on 22 s.v. VeChi Yihyeh BeIsh Cheit Mishpat Mavet
The juxtaposition of the topics tells that if his parents indulge him (c) (allow him to act so reprehensibly without turning him over to the local authorities), in the end he will become associated with criminality, transgress sins and be condemned to death by the court (d).
Discussion.
In this particular portion of his essay on Parashat Tazria that we have been discussing, R. Steinsaltz includes the Tochecha in VaYikra as a further example of the gradual intensification on God’s Part of omens and punishments:
VaYikra 26:14, 16, 18, 21, 23-4, 27-8, 40-2
14 But if ye will not hearken unto Me, and will not do all these Commandments… 16 I also will Do this unto you: I will Appoint terror over you, even consumption and fever, that shall make the eyes to fail, and the soul to languish; and ye shall sow your seed in vain, for your enemies shall eat it…
18 And if ye will not yet for these things hearken unto Me, then I will chastise you seven times more for your sins…
21 And if ye walk contrary unto Me, and will not hearken unto Me; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins…
23 And if in spite of these things ye will not be corrected unto Me, but will walk contrary unto Me; 24 Then will I also Walk contrary unto you; and I will Smite you, even I, seven times for your sins…
27 And if ye will not for all this hearken unto Me, but walk contrary unto Me; 28 Then I will Walk contrary unto you in fury; and I also will Chastise you seven times for your sins…
40 And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their treachery which they committed against Me, and also that they have walked contrary unto Me. 41 I also will Walk contrary unto them, and Bring them into the land of their enemies;
if then perchance their uncircumcised heart be humbled, and they then be paid the punishment of their iniquity; 42 then will I Remember My covenant with Yaakov, and also My Covenant with Yitzchak, and also My Covenant with Avraham will I Remember; and I will Remember the land…
I find the text of the Tochecha difficult with respect to the idea of using more and more severe difficulties as a goad to collective Teshuva on at least two scores:
1) When dealing with an entire nation, as opposed to individuals as in the case of Miraim and Uzia, and accepting the premise that Divine Punishments like Tzora’at will only be doled out to individuals who will be sensitive to their implications, how can the entire nation be dealt with using a single set of criteria? What is the tipping point where God Makes a Determination that He will no longer Be Patient and await a change of heart? (This same question can be posed regarding His Bringing a Flood during the generation of Noach. Can we assume that literally every single person aside from Noach and his family were corrupt and not worth saving? Must we assume that had a similar negotiation taken place between HaShem and Noach prior to the Flood as did prior to the destruction of Sodom and Amora Avraham tried to make a case for sparing the cities, ten individuals throughout the entire world would not have been identified that would have justified discretion rather than violent action?)
and 2) Can we say with certainty that at the end of the process, everyone will “get the message”? I would imagine that even on an individual level, there might be some cases where the object of this series of tragedies insists on chalking them up to coincidence and will not be led to any type of meaningful change of heart.
Does that mean that such texts have to be treated metaphorically rather than literally, i.e., the determination for dealing with an entire people or the entire world, is far more complex than what the Tora appears to maintain? I am not aware of any traditional commentators who make such a claim and would be interested in being directed to someone who does.
I suppose that such questions could have been posed independent of R. Steinsaltz’ presentation, but his perspective just sharpened the issues in my mind.
Tzorech Iyun Gadol!
Rabbi Yaakov Bieler 
You must be logged in to post a comment.