There is probably no physical reality described in the Torah that is more misunderstood than Tzara’at, one of the major topics of the two Parashiot this week. One-time miracles like the giving of the Torah or the splitting of the sea are better understood, and perhaps more easily accepted. For that reason alone, we must understand it. But the quarantine of the Metzora is an even more compelling reason for us to understand this condition.
At first glance, it seems as though the whole issue has a very narrow application. The prevalence of issues of ritual impurity in Vayikra is one of its grand themes. It seems to be crucial because of the protective wall we put around the Mishkan. The holy place cannot abide impurity. Nobody can enter the premises in that state, let alone work there. Because so much of the book of Vayikra is about operating the Mishkan in order to reach heights of hoiness, the obstacles to that operation become a major focus.
But understanding Tzara’at goes well beyond the protection of the Mishkan. Let’s clear away misleading thinking about this subject. One way to do that is to highlight the role of the Kohanim in this Parasha. Many have noted the central place of the Kohen -- rather than the doctor-- in ministering to those who have contracted Tzara’at. To many commentators, this is the beginning of a long list of proofs that what the Torah is describing is not a dermatological subspecialty. The Kohen does not have to be involved in every aspect of initial inspection, or to monitor its spread. But only a Kohen, and not a doctor, can pronounce if it is in fact Tzara’at.
The evidence that this is not a physical sickness is overwhelming. First, it renders the victim ritually impure. Like any other actual sickness, actual physical leprosy does not render anyone ritually impure. Neither the flu nor the novel Coronavirus nor cirrhosis introduce Tuma’a, or ritual impurity, and neither does leprosy. What’s more, there are very strong leniencies in dealing with Tzara’at, including a tendency to protect as much property as possible. In the case of a possible outbreak in a house, the Torah orders the evacuation of the contents of the house before the pronouncement takes place. This is done to spare any monetary loss due to the pronouncement and shows that infection was not a concern.
Further, the pronouncement was never made on a bride or groom during their wedding celebration because of the pall it would put on their joy. Nor was the pronouncement made during the Chagim or on Shabbat. As we all know, infection spreads most when people are gathered together yet these times were specifically exempt from any pronouncement about Tzara’at. Clearly, the condition was never seen by the rabbis as an infectious disease.
Compounding the problem, for centuries people confused the Torah’s banishment of the Metzora with physical quarantine. It was such a common misunderstanding that it ended up in official medical documents during the 19th century. But it was social, not physical, isolation that the Torah prescribed for the Metzora. The Talmud’s list of the sins that brought on Tzara’at includes Lashon Hara, false oaths, murder, and illiicit physical relations -- all crimes that tear at the social fabric. (Significantly, it does not list idol worship, which is a crime solely against Hashem.)
But the Kohen’s involvement teaches us more. The Kohen’s role both in banishing the Metzora and in bringing the offering which allows the Metzora to return to the community is not an accident. In many ways, R’ Yitzhak Twersky shows, the Metzora and the Kohen should be viewed as opposites and their contrast is instructive. The Kohen works in the very center of Jewish life, in the Mishkan, while the Metzora is banished to the far fringes of the physical Jewish community. The rabbis located the Metzora’s main failing in his or her hubris while the Kohanim are trained to resist pride, with Aharon HaKohen as the model. The Metzora’s haughtiness expresses itself in speech while the Kohanim are master communicators. The Kohanim have access to prophecy in the Urim V’Tumim and Aharon is Moshe Rabenu’s mouthpiece.
It is for this reason that the Kohanim are so important in bringing the Metzora back. The Gemora in Nedarim lists the Metzora as one of the living dead. This is because his social isolation prevents him from being a giver or contributor in any way to society. The Kohan, by contrast, is the ultimate public servant, and his maintenance of purity and holiness put him at the pinnacle of life. This permits the Kohan to usher the Metzora back to the land of the living.
The implication that social isolation is akin to death is the most sobering of the lessons of the Metzora. Isolation for social reasons has the same effect as that which takes place because of physical contagion. Returning to social circles and to contributing to the community is life-giving. May we see it soon in our days!
