How the Metzora Emerged From Exile More Humbled

 Parshat Tazria Metzora 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Our double parsha contains in it all the rules surrounding identifying who is a Metzora (one afflicted with tzara’as), how the person goes through being a Metzora, and how the person emerges from being a Metzora and rids oneself of the tumah (spiritual impurity) associated with being a Metzora. 

With tzara’as not being part of our experience in contemporary times, much of what is read over this Torah portion seems largely irrelevant. After all, what can we learn from the details of how to identify a disease, work through the disease, and purge oneself of the aftereffects of same disease, if a. it doesn’t exist today, and b. it’s not a medical condition? 

Tzara’as is not, as commonly translated, leprosy. Leprosy is a contagious disease (though the degree of its contagion is disputed) that is medically diagnosed and treated (https://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/guide/leprosy-symptoms-treatments-history), while tzara’as is a spiritual disease that has a physical manifestation, which is diagnosed by a Kohen and treated by a Kohen’s instruction and through the afflicted’s teshuvah process. 

Quoting the Talmud, Rabbi Elie Munk noted that “tzara’as afflictions are seen to be a possible consequence of 7 sins: slander, murder, perjury, debauchery, pride, theft, and jealousy… [therefore] Rambam concludes that the specific afflictions dealt with are not natural phenomena brought about by the laws of nature but are caused by Divine Intervention.” (13:2) 

א״ר שמואל בר נחמני א״ר יוחנן על שבעה דברים נגעים באין על לשון הרע ועל שפיכות דמים ועל שבועת שוא ועל גילוי עריות ועל גסות הרוח ועל הגזל ועל צרות העין. 

Tzara’as on clothing or property, or even on a newborn, was assumed by most commentaries to be a warning sign to the owner of the garment, property, or parent of the child, one to which they’d hopefully take heed and improve their ways. There is another view that the tzara’as on houses was sometimes meant to reveal hidden treasures buried beneath the afflicted stones. 

After the afflicted person has followed the necessary recourse of quarantine, full Kohen-diagnosis, and exile from the Israelite camp, the only way to rejoin society was through the Kohen’s revisiting the tzara’as markings and declaring everything kosher. 

Suffice it to say, the Kohen’s exit to the afflicted indicated something to the individual regarding the dire nature of the consequences of certain behaviors. Rabbi Munk writes, “It appears that antisocial behavior is a common characteristic of all the seven sins that are possible causes for the tzara’as afflictions. Therefore the guilty party must be removed from society according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, measure for measure [a punishment that fits the crime]. Hopefully his isolation will induce him to repent and return to a better way of life. Because of these special circumstances, the mitzvah of bikur cholim, visiting the sick, does not apply in the case of the metzora.” 

It’s a curious social situation. The Metzora is considered anti-social, and is therefore removed from the community for a limited amount of time. Of course, some of the sins the Metzora can be guilty of are not just anti-social – they are immoral! So why not just have tzara’as afflict the immoral? With a few relatively universal exceptions, immorality is defined differently across different societies (if one does an Internet search for “what Americans view as immoral” results from Gallup polls will pop up that are clearly influenced by Catholic thinking and have no bearing on our definition of immorality), so the tzara’as is limited in scope to specific behaviors, perhaps גילוי עריות being the one most loosely and expansively defined because there are so many possibilities in how to violate its rules. Our modern society might even look at many of the sins of גילוי עריות (as outlined in Parshas Acharei Mos and Kedoshim) as not being “anti-social” because they are often enough violated by two consenting adults! 

And yet the Kohen goes out to the Metzora, and not vice versa. Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Metzora to be further humiliated through having to trudge through town to get to the Kohen’s house, to knock on the door and say “I’m ready for reexamination”? Doesn’t it take away from the lesson to the Metzora if the Kohen makes housecalls to the exiled? 

Both arguments have merits, though I think the lesson that comes from the Kohen coming out to the person is more powerful than were the person to go to the Kohen. Rabbi Munk referred to the actions mentioned in the Talmud as anti-social because the person who engages in them does not realize the effect these behaviors have on society. The Metzora may be unaware that being boastful or jealous turns people off, that making unnecessary oaths cheapens language and therefore human communication, that stealing undermines the labor and efforts of the victims of thievery, that every life is precious, that even consenting adults (and certainly when consent is absent) break down a certain moral and social order if their union isn’t in the context what the Torah allows, and most famously, that you can’t simply say whatever you want when it comes to talking about people.

The Kohen comes on his schedule, not at the whim of the Metzora, because the Metzora needs to be put in place to understand “Your thinking is skewed. You didn’t learn properly. The information you have about the definitions of right and wrong is misinformed.” The Metzora needs to learn this at a time when the Metzora is completely dependent on a spiritual guide, in this case the Kohen, who will teach the proper way. Were the Metzora given the right to forge his own destiny in the aftermath of a repercussion that was meant to teach him an extremely important lesson, he might try to emerge before he is actually ready to take heed. 

 The Kohen coming to him on the Kohen’s time is humbling. Perhaps the Kohen comes with a book about Lashon Hora, or to review the rules of גילוי עריות or haughtiness, or with a goal of teaching the lessons the person missed or didn’t pick up along the way. Perhaps the lesson to the Metzora was “Examine your deeds, worry about you making yourself into the best you, not at the expense of others, and you’ll be welcomed back.” 

The beauty was that the Kohen was never the one who called out the bad behavior! The tzara’as came from God, and that is what put the whole story into motion so the Metzora could be made aware of the problem and hopefully put stops in place that these behaviors would never be repeated again. 

The truth sometimes hurts. But it’s only when we pursue, find, and know the truth that we can emerge with a more clear conscience and path forward. The Metzora had a skewed vision of truth, a clear misunderstanding of what kinds of actions and behaviors are welcome in society, and which contribute to the breakdown of society. 

The hope was that after isolation and the interaction with the Kohen, the metzora emerged as if a new person, more kind, gracious, loving, and humbled when interacting with one’s fellow man.