For the Birds

By Rabbi Joshua (ornithologically known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

In the parshiyos of Tazria and Metzorah, which are read this week, we learn of the affliction of a usually translated as leprosy - as it effects a person's body, his clothing and his home. The Midrash Rus Rabbah, 2 : 10, cited by Rabbeinu Bachya at the end of parshas Tazria, and also brought by the Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, says that when a person sins, God brings tzara'as to his house. If he repents, it is good. If not, God brings tzara'as onto his clothing. If he still does not repent, God afflicts the person himself with tzara'as. This progression in punishment, beginning with the possessions further removed from a person and proceeding to his actual person, are a demonstration of divine mercy - an early warning system indicating that the person should repent before the affliction of tzara'as invades his own body. Once that happens, he needs to leave the community for a period of time and then undergo a purification process, which makes him fit to re-enter the community and his regular family life.

A difficulty with this midrash is that the Torah itself mentions the three forms of tzara'as in the reverse order. First, tzara'as which afflicts one's body is described, then tzara'as of clothing, and then tzara'as of houses. Why was this order followed if, according to the midrash, it is first a person's house that is invaded with tzara'as? One answer, brought in the Yalkut Me'am Loez, is that the order followed in the Torah is an indication of the punishment a person is worthy to receive for transgressing one of those sins whose punishment is tzara'as. A person who, for example, engages in speaking leshon hora, or evil talk, in disparagement of another person, should by right be afflicted with tzara'as on his body. However, God, in his mercy, first afflicts his house, and then his clothing, as a warning, before the person himself is afflicted. Although this is not the place to elaborate on the point, Rabbi Yehudah Copperman, among others, has shown that, in general, the peshat, or plain sense, of Torah verses represents the way Torah law should be on an ideal level. The explanation given by the Talmud and midrash bring the Torah down to the level of practical implementation. Thus, as the Rambam writes in his Guide to the Perplexed, when the Torah writes ' an eye for an eye,' it is telling us that on an ideal level, this is the punishment a person deserves, following the principle of 'measure for measure.' However, on a practical level, the rabbis teach us that one does not give an eye for an eye, but, rather, must pay a monetary penalty. A similar principle, then, seems to be guiding the variance between the sequence of afflictions as explained in the midrash, and as actually recorded in the Torah.

Rabbi Henoch Leibowitz, in his Chidushei Ha Leiv to parshas Metzorah, explains the variance differently, based on the comments of Rabbeinu Bachya. Rabbeinu Bachya notes the variance in order, and explains that since the ways of the Torah are pleasant, it lists the punishments from the heaviest punishment to the lightest, in a descending order, rather that in the reverse, an ascending order. Rabbi Leibowitz asks why the Torah uses this order, since it does not reflect the actual sequence of events. Is the Torah trying to mislead us? He answers that the order is changed so that a person will not give up hope of repenting for his sin. The subtle difference between the use of a descending order and the use of an ascending order makes an impression. People can be very sensitive to the use of language, to the turn of a phrase, to the point that one's entire outlook on something can be effected by a slight change of expression. Therefore the Torah phrased the order of punishments in a way that would give him the sense that he can, in fact, change his ways. Moreover, says Rabbi Leibowitz, the change in order is a message to the person himself, to be careful in the way he talks.

Although Rabbi Leibowitz does not make this point, it is certainly appropriate, in the context of the punishment of tzara'as, to become sensitive to one's use of language even in terms of subtle nuances in speech. Tzara'as comes because of a flagrant disregard of one's speech, speaking against another person without caring how much he will be hurt by it. In repenting for this sin, one needs to go to the opposite extreme and make sure to phrase even his permissible speech in a way that shows a sensitivity to the needs of others. Perhaps for this reason the Torah requires, as part of the purification process for tzara'as, that two birds be brought. One is slaughtered as a sacrifice, and the other is sent free out to the field. The Zohar says that one of these birds is for evil speech, and the other is for pure speech. Perhaps the idea here is that in repenting for speaking leshon hora, one must not merely refrain, henceforth, from speaking against others. Rather, he must acquire a sensitivity toward the feelings of others to the extent that he is careful even with the nuances of his words, and uses his gift of speech only to bring encouragement and foster good feelings.