What’s a Metzora to Do? — BT Arakhin 16b — #130

R. Shmuel b. Nadav asked R. Chanina, others say R. Shmuel b. Nadav, the son-in-law of R. Chanina asked R. Chanina, and yet others say [he asked] R. Yehoshua b. Levi. “Why is the metzora distinctive, such that Torah says, He shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp (Leviticus 13:46)?”—[for example,] he separated a man from his wife, a person from their neighbor. Therefore Torah said, He shall live alone. R. Yehoshua b. Levi said, “What is distinctive about the metzora that Torah says he must bring, two living ritually clean birds (Leviticus 14:4) to become ritually pure again?” The Holy Blessed One said: He behaved like a babbler [speaking evil of others]; therefore Torah tells him to bring a babbler as a sacrifice.

INTRODUCTION

The term tzara’at covers a large number of skin diseases, which Torah describes as affecting the skin or hair, or found on clothing or even on the stones of houses. Leviticus 13-14 catalogues a great many of the symptoms, which include discoloration, scaly patches, lesions, boils, and burn-like sores. Tzara’at has long been erroneously translated “leprosy,” which is a well understood neurological condition called Hansen’s Disease. But tzara’at is not synonymous with leprosy. The person afflicted with tzara’at is called a metzora. Tzara’at renders one ritually impurity until a priest’s examination deems them cured and eligible for purification. Until then, Torah imposes several unusual conditions: the metzora must wear torn clothes, leave their hair unkempt, cover the lower part of their face, and cry out, “Ritually impure, ritually impure!” presumably to warn others in the vicinity. In addition, the metzora must “dwell apart” from the community, living outside the encampment (Leviticus 13:46). After a priest examines the metzora and declares them cured, the metzora may reenter the camp and complete their purification in the Tabernacle with “two living ritually clean birds” (Leviticus 14:4).

For the Rabbis, tzara’at is not merely a physical disease, but rather the symptom of a spiritual malady that is divine punishment for moral sins. A midrash in Vayikra Rabbah tells us that tzara’at is a symptom of seven traits and acts God abhors: haughtiness, lying, shedding innocent blood, scheming to do evil, running eagerly to do evil, giving false witness, and sowing discord among people. BT Arakhin 16a provides an alternative list of seven: murder, engaging in a vain oath, illicit sexual intercourse, pride, theft, and miserliness, but here as elsewhere in the rabbinic tradition, the hands-down most popular explanation is lashon ha-ra—evil speech or gossip. The connection comes primarily from a rabbinic interpretation of the story in Numbers in which Miriam attacks her brother Moses on the pretext of his wife’s ethnicity, criticizing Tzipporah as a Cushite (dark-skinned). As punishment, God afflicts Miriam with tzara’at that turns her skin a flaky white. From this, the Rabbis deduced that tzara’at is punishment for lashon ha-ra.

COMMENTARY

R. Shmuel b. Nadav poses a question. The Gemara is unclear to whom he poses the question, and goes out of its way to record various received versions, but is clear that R. Yehoshua b. Levi responds. R. Shmuel has noticed two unusual features of how a metzora is treated. No other seemingly medical disease garners this treatment. First, the metzora cannot remain in the Israelites’ encampment, living with others, but must relocate and live alone outside the camp. Second, upon recovery, the ritual of purification for the former metzora requires two birds, one of which is sacrificed and the other of which is set free. R. Shmuel b. Nadav asks why these unusual features pertain only to the metzora. R. Yehoshua b. Levi explains two features of the treatment of a metzora to be allegorical punishment and remedy for the underlying crime of lashon ha-ra. In essence, he is saying: the metzora is punished with separation from the community because their gossiping caused the rupture of relationships and separation of people from one another, as for example between a married couple or between neighbors. The two birds required to complete the ritual purification process mirror the crime of lashon ha-ra: the birds babble, just as a gossiper babbled.

Talmud does not attempt to explain the specifics of the procedures for dealing with tzara’at in the context of the larger system of ritual purity or the traditions of the sacrificial cult. Rather, both punishment and atonement reflect the crime: The one who commits lashon ha-ra, alienating people from one another, is excluded from the community for a time, isolated by being forced to live outside the camp where garbage and sacrificial leftovers are dumped—a fitting location for one who cannot control their speech. The emotional danger the metzora inflicted on others  results in physical danger to the metzora.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER AND DISCUSS

1. Midrash Tanchuma teaches that three are (figuratively) killed by lashon ha-ra: the speaker, the listener, and the object of the speech. Who is the most guilty and why?
2. Reflect on Rachel Adler’s interpretation of Torah’s requirement that the metzora “cover his upper lip” (Leviticus 13:45) below. Whose faces do you turn away from? Whose faces do we turn away from, as a society?

“He shall cover his upper lip. Fearing contagion from the metzora’s breath, the biblical text commands that he veil his upper lip and proclaim his impurity to warn others away, but under his veil, his eyes can still call out wordlessly for compassion, for connection. The contemporary philosopher Emmanuel Levinas teaches that the face of the Other upturned to our own face is the primary locus of ethics. Faces are infinitely varied, the most individualized of our body parts. The face is bare, vulnerable. It expresses pain, need, and loneliness. The face is also the primary locus of Otherness. The Other’s face is different from mine. . . . Levinas would argue that our ethical obligation is to do what is counter-intuitive, what is the very opposite of pollution thinking: to stay rather than to flee, to comfort rather than reject. (Rachel Adler, “Those Who Turn Away Their Faces,” in Healing and the Jewish Imagination, p. 153)

3. Talmud’s reinterpretation of the physical disease of tzara’at to a moral-spiritual malady offers a new way to approach difficult texts. What other challenging texts might be interpreted metaphorically?