Tazria - Metzorah
Lev. 12:1-15:33
Tazria begins with laws concerning the need for ritual purification of women following the birth of children, and the laws of what is usually referred to as “leprosy” of the skin and on garments (although this translation is most certainly erroneous; it appears to refer to an affliction which renders the person, garment, or home ritually impure).
Metzorah discusses laws for the purification of “lepers” with sacrifice and water. It also discusses growths on walls of a house which cause ritual impurity. The parasha concludes with a discussion of bodily secretions which are another source of ritual impurity
Lev.13:1 “Adonai spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying, ‘When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly infection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests.’”
Rabbi Sacks taught that the Septuagint, the early Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated tsara’at, the condition whose identification and cleansing occupies much of Tazria and Metzorah as “lepra,” which in term was translated into “leprosy.”
That concept has been almost universally rejected. As Maimonides stated, “Tsara’at is a comprehensive term covering a number of dissimilar conditions. Thus, whiteness in a person’s skin is called tsara’at. The falling off of some of his hair on the head or the chin is called tsara’at. A change of color in garments or in houses is called tsara’at” (Hilchot Tumat Tsara’at 16:10).
In trying to discern the reasons for the condition, the Sages looked for clues in the Torah. Noting that Miriam was smitten by tsara’at for speaking badly about her brother Moses (Num. 12:10), they concluded that the condition could arise from evil speech (lashon hara). The Sages also noted the linguistic connection between “metzorah” (a person afflicted by the condition) and the Hebrew phrase “motzi shem ra,” (slander). The Sages noted wisely: “Evil speech kills three people: the one who says it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom it is said.” (Arachin 15b.)
We live in a time when it is difficult to avoid “evil speech” in our political discourse, particularly when such speech is based on lies. How are we to adapt our tradition’s aversion to evil speech and slander to present circumstances? I do not have an answer, only the question, which leads me to ponder how we can restore essential civility to our families, communities, and the world at large.
