Metzorah: Natural Disaster

Learning the Parshios of Tzaria and Metzorah can be somewhat daunting, as it is difficult to to relate to the Inyanim of Tzaras in our times. As with all other areas of the Torah, however, if we use the Divrei Chazal that accompany the Pessukim, we can certainly find meaning even in seemingly obscure topics.

There are generally three types of Tzaras that the Torah speaks about: Tzaras HaGuf, which occurs on a person’s body or hair, Tzaras HaBegged, which appears on clothing, and Tzaras Habayis which comes on the walls of a house. The Pessukim that discuss the first two types of Tzaras, Guf and Begged, are grouped together in Parshas Tzriah, while the final category, Tzaras Habayis, is placed apart in Parshas Metzorah following all the Pessukim that discuss the Tahara process of a Metzorah. Besides their disparate placement within the Parshios, there is a difference in the way each of the Tzivuyim is given: Tzaras of the Guf and Begged were said under the same Tzivuy, which was given to Moshe and Aron together, while Tzaras Habayis was said to Moshe Rabbeinu alone. Based on these differences, it certainly appears that the Pessukim of Tzaras Habayis are meant to stand alone, and deliver their own message.

The way this topic is introduced in the Pessukim is notable as well. The Parsha of Tzaras Haguf begins with a direct Tzivuy: “Adam Ki Yihiyeh B’Or Besor Se’es Oh Sapachas Oh Baheres…V’Huvah El Aron Hakohen” if someone has a spot on their body that seems to be Tzaras , they are to show it to a Kohen. The Parsha of Tzaras Haguf, on the other hand, is a little more narrative: Hashem tells Moshe that when we reach Eretz Yisroel, “V’Nasati Negah Tzaras B’Bais Eretz Achuzaschem”, there may be a time that a Negah is placed in a persons home. The next Passuk describes how the owner of the house should proceed, again in a rather descriptive format: “U’Ba Asher Lo Habayis V’Higid LaKohen Leimor KiNeggah Nera Li BaBayis.”

The questions on these PEssukim are rather self-evident: why did the Torah have to introduce this Parsha with the extra words regarding our settling in Eretz Yisroel and the Bais Eretz Achuzaschem, and why does the Torah describe in such detail the words used by the Ba’al Habayis to inform the Kohen of the possible Negah in his home?

The first Passuk is explained by a relatively well-known Chazal, which tells us that the Torah is hinting to treasure buried in the walls of the houses built by the Emorim, which would be found when the house is disassembled due to the Negah. This Chazal is indeed the source of much discussion, but the explanation given for the second Passuk is less so.

Rashi, citing the Sifra, tells us that the script is presented as such to teach us a Halacha: Even if a person is a Talmid Chacham well versed in Hilchos Nega’im and he is therefore certain that he in fact has Tzaras Habayis, he should not say so to the Kohen. Rather, when he speaks to the Kohen he should say “KiNegah”, that something like a Negah has appeared in his house.

There is a Medrash that gleans an important lesson from this Passuk: “Al Tiftach Peh L’Satan”. Even though the man is certain that his house is afflicted by Tzaras Habayis, he could be wrong—there is a possibility that the Kohen will find cause to proclaim the house Tahar and not Tamei. Therefore the homeowner should not proclaim his Tzaras in the definitive, and should only say that something resembling a Negah has appeared in his home.

While this is an important lesson, we must understand why the Torah has taught it to us here, with respect to Nigei Batim. This idea would seem to apply to other types of Tzaras as well—a person can become an expert in Niggei HaGuf and determine that he has been stricken with Tzaras but the Torah doesn’t tell us that he should not say so to the Kohen. Why is it here, in the Parsha of Niggei Batim that the Torah teaches us the Halacha of “KiNegah”? Perhaps we can gain an insight into the message of Tzaras Habayis, and better understand why the Pessukim are written as they are, based on a Yalkut Shimoni, which interprets the PAssuk in a homiletical fashion.

Based on Pessukim from throughout Tanach, the Yalkut explains that the Passuk is referring not only to a hypothetical house stricken by a Negah, but an actual Bayis that had a similar misfortune. “U’Ba Asher Lo HaBayis” is reffering to HaKadosh Baruch Hu whose home is the Bais Hamikdash, “V’Higid LaKohen” speaks of Yirmeyahu Hanavi who was a Kohen, and the words “KiNeggah Nera Li BaBayis” refer to the Tzelem of Menashe Hamelech that was placed in the Heichal. The Yalkut goes on to explain that, just like a Bayis HaMenugah, the Bais Hamikdash was first looted of its contents and then destroyed, because of the Negah. The Medrash ends on a more positive note, however, explaining that just as a home that had a Negah is rebuilt, so to the Bais Hamikdash will one day be restored.

The way that the Yalkut reads the Passuk, as referring to the cause of the Churban Habayis, is startling, but also slightly puzzling. What is the connection between the Tzelem of Menashe and Tzaras Habayis? Why would the “Asher Lo Habayis”, Hashem, tell his Kohen, Yimiyahu, refer to the Tzelem that Menashe placed in the Bais Hamikdash as a Negah specifically?

To understand the Yalkut, it may help to examine the Pessukim in Melachim that speak about Menashe Hamelech.

The entire reign of Menashe, which lasted fifty-five years, is discussed in the span of seventeen Pessukim in Sefer Melachim. Throughout those Pessukim, the Navi presents his evil actions in something of a progression: his Aveiros began on a lower level and escalated to the point that he placed a Tzelem in the Heichal. Although such a pattern could be ascribed to the idea of Aveira Goreres Aveira, there is one other notable theme within the Pessukim there that may help us understand part of the reason for the path that Menashe’s life took.

Before detailing the Avieros of Menashe, the Passuk makes a general statement: “Vayaas Harah B’Eynei Hahsem K’Toavas Hagoyim Asher Horish Hashem Mipnei Bnei Yisroel.” The Ra’ah of Menashe is compared, at the outset, to the actions of the Goyim who were chased out of Eretz Yisroel. A similar idea is echoed later in the Pessukim, when the Navi describes the effect that Menashe had on Bnei Yisroel: “VaYasem Mensashe La’asos Es Harah Min Hagoyim Asher Hishmid Hashem Mipnei Bnei Yisroel.” Here the Navi tells us that the Avreiros caused by Menashe were in fact worse that those of the Umos Haolam that formerly inhabited the land. This term is not used with regard to any of the other Malchei Yisroel who lead the people astray—it is used only with regard to Menashe.

Although we are far from being able to speak in any derogatory way about Menashe HaMelech, as seen in the Gemrah in Sanhedrin, based on the Pessukim there seems to be an indication that the Avieros of Menashe were somehow connected to a blurring of the lines between Bnei Yisroel and the Umos Haolam. Somehow, there was a breakdown of the separation between the Am Hanivchar and the “Hagoyim Asher Hishmid Hashem” which led to the Avieros for which Menashe was responsible. There is an indication of this idea in the way the Navi speaks about the Bais Hamikdash as well.

In describing the most heinous of Menashe’s activities, the Tzelem he placed in the Bais HaMikdash, the Passuk does not refer only to the Bais Hashem or the Heilchal. Rather, there is an extended description of the Mikdash as the Bayis about which Hashem told Dovid and Shlomo: “Babayis Hazeh U’ViYerushalyim Asher Bacharti Mikol Shivtei Yisroel Asim Es Shemi L’Olam.” The Malbim explains that the words “Asher Bacharti Mikol Shivtei Yisroel” mean that all the Shevatim are Shutfim in the Bais Hamikdash, and all the Avodah that is done there is on behalf of all of Klal Yisroel. It seems then that the Navi here, speaking about the placement of a Tzelem in the Heichel, specifically describes the Bais Hamikdash in terms relating to its function as a nexus of Klal Yisroel. Why is that the case? Why make refer to this aspect of the Mikdash at this point?

If we understand that, on some level, Menashe did not adequately distinguish between Klal Yisroel and the Umos Haolam, this Passuk is more understandable. It was because of a lack of appreciation for the idea of Klal Yisroel, and an ability to, in some way, identify with the Umos Haloam more than his own people, that he was able to bring a Tzelem into the Heichal. Only out of a lack of understanding of the elevated status of Klal Yisroel was Menashe able to defile the one place in which our Gadlus is highlighted, the place that is Mikol Shivtei Yisroel.

There is a similar thread to be found in Niggei Batim.

Although it is generally accepted that Niggei Haguf come as a result of Lashon Harah, the Gemarah in Erachin tells us that Tzaras Habayis comes as the result of a different Aveira: Tzarus HaAyin, stinginess. The Passuk refers to the one “Asher Lo Habayis”, and Chazal make a Drasha: he is one whose home is his own, to the exclusion of others. It is one who is not generous with his own possessions, whose home is not open to others, and who displays the Middah of “Sheli-Sheli” that is destined to find a Negah in his home.

On one hand, this is a bit surprising: Tzarus Ayin is certainly a negative Middah, and we are expected to be giving to others, but why does it merit a punishment as severe as Tzaras? If we think about the root of this Middah, however, our surprise may dissipate.

In most cases, the reason a person is not generous to others is due to an insecurity as far as his own possessions. If one knows that his funds are unlimited, that he can replace any of his belongings and that he is limitless in his ability to fulfil the dictate of “Haksef Ya’aneh Es Hakol”, he is much more likely to be openhanded and magnanimous. Too often we see that a person’s net worth does not dictate his ability to give, but this is often due to the conception that he must preserve his wealth for one reason or another. Although it is easy to chalk this behavior up to a simple lack of Emunah, there may be something else at play.

The Passuk in Parshas Netzavim says that it is when Klal Yisroel disregards the “Bris Hashem…Asher Karas Imam B’Hotzio Osam M’Eretz Mitzrayim.” We stray from the Derech Hashem when we forget the Bris that we made when we left Mitzrayim. The Meshech Chachma explains that the Bris the Passuk refers to is the fact that Klal Yisroel is under the direct Hashgacha of Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. If we understand this, and live in the reality that we are subject to Hashgacha Elyona and not Teva, it doesn’t make sense to serve Avodah Zarah, as even if there are other forces, they have no relation to Klal Yisroel. If, however, we disregard the Hashgachas Hashem, we may fall into the trap of serving other gods.

It emerges, then, that one who lives in a world dictated by Teva does so out of a lack of sensitivity to our special standing. If he was truly understanding of what it meant to be a Yid he would be cognizant of the fact that we are under the influence of Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone, and no other force including Teva. One who is afflicted with Tzarus Ayin, then, lacks that same awareness. He is protective of his material wealth because he believes that it is his, that he earned it, and that it is he who must replace anything that he loses. Were he to live in a world of exclusive Hashgachas Hashem, he would be much more likely to be generous with others as, knowing the true source of his wealth, he would not feel that his possessions are actually at risk.

Perhaps this is why the Torah teaches the Halacha of “KiNegah” specifically here. The one who sees a Negah on his wall is a Tzat Ayin, he lives in the world of Teva. This does not allow him to be an adequate judge because his vision is clouded—he does not see beyond the obvious. When he sees a spot on the wall, even if all the Halachos that he learned told him that this is a Negah, that is only in Teva. The Kohen however, has the ability to make a clearer judgment, one rooted in Ruchnias and not Teva. The Torah therefore tells the Tzar Ayin not to jump to conclusions, not to be so fast to proclaim that it is in fact a Negah, as it is a lack of vision that may have brought him there to begin with.

The connection between Tzaras Habayis and the Tzelem of Menashe is thus understood: both came from a deficiency in understanding what it means to be a member of the Am Hanivchar. Menashe acted like those who had been chased form the land, and, by identifying with Teva the Tzar Ayin does as well. In both cases, a lack of appreciation of our special status, of the Gadlus of the Am Hanivchar, led to the emergence of a Negah and the destruction of a Bayis.

As we noted, the Yalkut ends with a promise: like the a Bayis Hamenugah, though defiled and ultimately destroyed, the Bais Hamikdash can be rebuilt. If we work on our own identity as members of the Am Hanivchar, and our understanding that we are not subject to Teva, but to Hashgachas Eloyna alone, we will soon be Zoche to the day of “V’Lakchu Avanim Acheros” and the Binyan Habayis.