Don’t Be So Sure

By Rabbi Joshua (definitely known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

The parshiyos Tazria and Mtzora deal, for the most part, with the laws of tzora’as, commonly translated, based on the Septuagint, as leprosy, which appears on a person’s flesh, his clothing, and his house. There is a peculiarity about tzora’as of the house that we do not find spelled out in regard to the other forms of it. When the owner comes to the kohein to have him check out whether there is actually tzora’as there, he says to the kohein, ‘something like tzora’as appears to me in the house’ (Vayikra 14:35). The rabbis tell us (Mishnah, Negaim 14:5) that even if the owner is a Torah scholar, he should not declare that there is tzora’as is in the house until he goes to a kohein for that determination. Even though it is the kohein who determines whether or not a certain spot is tzora’as in all three cases, this requirement is only mentioned in regard to a house. Why is this so?

Some commentartors, such as the Tosafos Yom Tov in his commentary to the Mishnah in Negaim, say that this requirement holds true in regard to all three forms, but is only spelled out in regard to houses, because in regard to, for example, tzora’as of the body, he can merely show the spot to the kohein, without having to tell him that a spot has appeared. This is conceivable in regard to tzora’as of the clothing, as well, but not in regard to tzora’as of the house, in which case he must explain to the kohein why he is asking him to come to his house. The status of the spot is more amorphous in a house than in the other two cases. In an alternative explanation, however, the Tosafos Yom Tov says that this requirement only holds true in regard to tzora’as of the house. What is different about tzora’as of the house that generates this requirement?

Perhaps we can suggest, homiletically, that tzora’as, as the Talmud in Arachin as well as the Midrash Rabbah teach us, is reflective of some kind of sin, most notably leshon hora, or evil talk, but also of haughtiness and a host of other sins. In this sense, tzora’as is reflective of some kind of moral failing. When it comes to a person’s own behavior, it is understandable that his conscience bothers him and he feels that he did something wrong, and this moral failing has led to tzora’as, either on his own body or on his clothing. A person is usually aware of the major sins that he has committed, and, therefore, will not necessarily be surprised if tzora’as in one of these forms appears.

When it comes to tzora’as of the house, however, the situation is different. When something seems to be going wrong in the household, it is very easy to jump to the conclusion that a member of the family has committed a sin, and this can lead to a reaction of anger or worse on the part of the head of the household. It is important to remember, however, that there is the possibility that the family dynamic is such that nothing terribly wrong has occurred, and there is, perhaps, just some kind of misunderstanding going on, or that the problem is much smaller than he thinks. For this reason, he should not conclude immediately that his home is infested with sin, but, rather, try to rethink the general character of the household, to see if some minor adjustments are needed. Only the kohein can make this determination, and, so, the owner goes to him and says that something that appears to be a leprous spot has shown up in his house, but he is not certain about it. In this way, he can deal with it in a responsible way.