Metzorah: A Symptom of Betrayal

Shabbat Metzorah

“A Symptom of Betrayal”

By: Rabbi Jeffrey H. Miller^[1]

 

The Torah views tzarras^[2] as the physical manifestation of a spiritual disease.  But what conduct merits such a painful punishment that is worn on the body for all to see?

The most common sin associated with tzaraas is “lashon harah”, which is usually defined as truthful but otherwise malicious speech:

Lashon hara [lit., “an evil tongue”] is he who sits in company and relates, saying: “thus did that certain party, thus were his parents, and thus I did hear about him” and of course, he relates scandalous matters.

אֲבָל בַּעַל לָשׁוֹן הָרַע זֶה שֶׁיּוֹשֵׁב וְאוֹמֵר כָּךְ וְכָךְ עָשָׂה פְּלוֹנִי וְכָךְ וְכָךְ הָיוּ אֲבוֹתָיו וְכָךְ וְכָךְ שָׁמַעְתִּי עָלָיו וְאָמַר דְּבָרִים שֶׁל גְּנַאי

[רמב”ם הל’ דעות ז:ב]

However, lashon hara is not the only cause of tzaraas.   The Talmud (Arakhin 16a) enumerates seven sins that can produce tzarras.  A list of ten sins is found in VaYikra Rabba (17:3).  Meanwhile, Midrash Tanhuma has its own list of thirteen sins that causes tzaraas.  In fact, one can contract tzaraas without sinning at all; the Talmud teaches us that tzaraas can also be averted by a healthy lifestyle that includes a combination of diet, exercise and moderate alcohol consumption:

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For what reason are there no lepers in Babylonia? Because they eat beets, drink beer, and bathe in the waters of the Euphrates, all of which are good for the body.

אמר רבי יוחנן מפני מה אין מצורעין בבבל מפני שאוכלין תרדין ושותין שכר ורוחצין במי פרת

[TB Ketubot 77b]

I do not know why lashon hara is the default, go-to diagnosis when there are so many other possibilities that emerge from a differential diagnosis of tzaraas.  (I am clearly watching too many reruns of “House”.)  Since this week’s parsha is of little help^[3], let’s see if the Haftorah can guide us.

The haftorah (II Kings 7:3ff) tells the story of four unnamed ‘lepers’ who stumble upon the empty encampment of the invading Aramean army.  These lepers plunder the camp, taking food first, then silver, gold, and clothes.

That these vagabonds are nameless is not an oversight.  The author is surely hinting that they were abandoned, degraded, dehumanized.  In fact, the most powerful part of the haftorah is that these anonymous wandering men decide to share their discovery with the nation that had heretofore cast them aside and paid no heed to them:

Now one said to another, “We are not doing right. This day is a day of good news, yet we are keeping quiet. If we wait until daybreak, we will incur guilt. Now, let us go and come and relate this in the king’s palace.”

וַיֹּאמְרוּ֩ אִ֨ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֜הוּ לֹֽא־כֵ֣ן | אֲנַ֣חְנוּ עֹשִֹ֗ים הַיּ֚וֹם הַזֶּה֙ יוֹם־בְּשׂרָ֣ה ה֔וּא וַאֲנַ֣חְנוּ מַחְשִׁ֗ים וְחִכִּ֛ינוּ עַד־א֥וֹר הַבֹּ֖קֶר וּמְצָאָ֣נוּ עָו֑וֹן וְעַתָּה֙ לְכ֣וּ וְנָבֹ֔אָה וְנַגִּ֖ידָה בֵּ֥ית הַמֶּֽלֶךְ

[II Kings 7:9]

That the men are unidentified in Tanach does not stop Chazal from ascribing identities to them!^[4]  Rashi informs us that the entourage was Gehazi and his three sons.  Gehazi’s story was summed up in a 1915 poem by Rudyard Kippling but for a more authoritative source, take a look at II Kings Ch 5.^[5]

Gehazi was the deputy of the Prophet Elisha.  Once, Elisha miraculously prescribed a cure for the leprosy of Naaman, general of the Aramean army.  Gehazi, not wanting to miss an opportunity to profit off the prophet, secretly took a payment for his master’s priceless act of chessed.  When Elisha found out, he banished Gehazi with the following curse:

Surely, the leprosy of Naaman shall cling to you and to your descendants forever.” And as [Gehazi] left his presence, he was snow-white with leprosy.

וְצָרַ֤עַת נַֽעֲמָן֙ תִּֽדְבַּק־בְּךָ֔ וּֽבְזַרְעֲךָ לְעוֹלָ֑ם וַיֵּצֵ֥א מִלְּפָנָ֖יו מְצֹרָ֥ע כַּשָּֽׁלֶג׃

[II Kings 5:27]

Gehazi, reduced to wandering the countryside as a leper, is the selfsame unknown man who (along with his living descendants) stumbled upon the vacant encampment of the general from whom he previously extorted payment.

Whatever Gehazi’s sin was, it does not appear at face value to have been lashon hara!

MIRIAM:

The connection between lashon hara and tzaraas is usually drawn from the story of Miriam, who was inflicted with tzaraas following her criticism to Aharon of Moshe’s relationship with his wife.  (See, BaMidbar Ch. 12.)  Before pronouncing sentence upon her, God chastised her:

He said, “Hear these My words: When a prophet of the LORD arises among you, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream.	וַיֹּ֖אמֶר שִׁמְעוּ־נָ֣א דְבָרָ֑י אִם־ה֙ נְבִ֣יאֲכֶ֔ם ה בַּמַּרְאָה֙ אֵלָ֣יו אֶתְוַדָּ֔ע בַּחֲל֖וֹם אֲדַבֶּר־בּֽוֹ׃
Not so with My servant Moshe; he is trusted throughout My household	לֹא־כֵ֖ן עַבְדִּ֣י מֹשֶׁ֑ה בְּכָל־בֵּיתִ֖י נֶאֱמָ֥ן הֽוּא׃
With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the LORD. How then did you not shrink from speaking against My servant Moshe!”	פֶּ֣ה אֶל־פֶּ֞ה אֲדַבֶּר־בּ֗וֹ וּמַרְאֶה֙ וְלֹ֣א בְחִידֹ֔ת וּתְמֻנַ֥ת יְהוָ֖ה יַבִּ֑יט וּמַדּ֙וּעַ֙ לֹ֣א יְרֵאתֶ֔ם לְדַבֵּ֖ר בְּעַבְדִּ֥י בְמֹשֶֽׁה׃

 

It certainly seems that God is angry at Miriam’s loose lips.  At least until God responds to Moshe’s plea for mercy:

So Moshe cried out to the LORD, saying, “O God, pray heal her!”	וַיִּצְעַ֣ק מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶל־יְהוָ֖ה לֵאמֹ֑ר אֵ֕ל נָ֛א רְפָ֥א נָ֖א לָֽהּ׃
But the LORD said to Moshe, “If her father spat in her face, would she not bear her shame for seven days? Let her be shut out of camp for seven days, and then let her be readmitted.”	וַיֹּ֨אמֶר ה אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה וְאָבִ֙יהָ֙ יָרֹ֤ק יָרַק֙ בְּפָנֶ֔יהָ הֲלֹ֥א תִכָּלֵ֖ם שִׁבְעַ֣ת יָמִ֑ים תִּסָּגֵ֞ר שִׁבְעַ֤ת יָמִים֙ מִח֣וּץ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה וְאַחַ֖ר תֵּאָסֵֽף׃

 

What point is God making with His “spit in the father’s face” analogy?  Further, why is Moshe twice referred to by God as “My servant Moshe” when this seems to be a story about adult sibling rivalry?

MOSHE:

Patient Zero of tzaraas is none other than Moshe Rabbeinu, who was briefly afflicted during his first encounter with HaShem at the burning bush.  After HaShem Instructs Moshe to return to Egypt to challenge the dictator of the regional power and be the instrument of God’s redemption, Moshe weakly demurs:

But Moses spoke up and said, “What if they do not believe me and do not listen to me, but say: The LORD did not appear to you?”

מֹשֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹֽא־יַאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י כִּ֣י יֹֽאמְר֔וּ לֹֽא־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֖יךָ ה׃

 

In response, HaShem gave Moshe two signs, the first of which was the snake out of a walking stick trick, followed immediately by:

The LORD said to him further, “Put your hand into your bosom.” He put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, his hand was encrusted with snowy scales!

וַיֹּאמֶר֩ ה ל֜וֹ ע֗וֹד הָֽבֵא־נָ֤א יָֽדְךָ֙ בְּחֵיקֶ֔ךָ וַיָּבֵ֥א יָד֖וֹ בְּחֵיק֑וֹ וַיּ֣וֹצִאָ֔הּ וְהִנֵּ֥ה יָד֖וֹ מְצֹרַ֥עַת כַּשָּֽׁלֶג׃

 

Rashi, citing TB Shabbos 97a^[6], suggests that Moshe’s concern that Bnai Yisrael would not believe him constituted lashon hara, just as Miriam’s criticism of Moshe’s relationship with his wife was lashon hara.  Both these acts of speech were punishable by tzaraas.

But was Moshe really speaking lashon hara about Bnai Yisrael?  Or was his primary concern elsewhere?

Making the Connection:

Among the grievous sins that produce tzaraas is Chillul HaShem, desecrating the Name of God.  (VaYikra Rabbah 17:3).  In fact, the midrash there uses Gehazi as the source:

[From whence do we know that desecration of God’s Name causes tzaraas?] from the episode of Gehazi [where he is referred to as] “Gehazi, the servant of Elisha the man of God”…

וְעַל חִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם, מִגֵּיחֲזֵי (מלכים ב ה, כ): וַיֹּאמֶר גֵּחֲזִי נַעַר אִישׁ הָאֱלֹהִים

 

• When Gehazi chased after Naaman and demanded payment, he reduced Elisha, the servant of God, to a travelling side show peddling miracle cures for profit.  In doing so, he diminished the Generosity of HaShem and thus lowered God’s Image in the eyes of Naaman.
• When Moshe tried to decline his appointment to lead Bnai Yisrael out of bondage, he may have questioned whether Paro would relent and whether Bnai Yisrael would follow, but he was really wondering at loud – to God – whether God would come through in the clutch.  That is why he added:

Moshe answered and said, “Behold they will not believe me, and they will not heed my voice, but they will say, ‘The Lord has not appeared to you.’ “

וַיַּ֤עַן משֶׁה֙ וַיֹּ֔אמֶר וְהֵן֙ לֹא־יַֽאֲמִ֣ינוּ לִ֔י וְלֹ֥א יִשְׁמְע֖וּ בְּקֹלִ֑י כִּ֣י יֹֽאמְר֔וּ לֹֽא־נִרְאָ֥ה אֵלֶ֖יךָ ה

 

• When Miriam criticized Moshe’s relationship with his wife, she was really wondering aloud about Moshe’s special relationship with HaShem, which is why God twice used the expression “My servant Moshe” (see, above; see, also, Rashi on Shemot 12:1)

Rashi goes out of his way to point out the Miriam was not just a meddling sister interfering with Moshe’s private life. She felt that his personal decisions communicated an air of superiority and was an overextension of his Divine Mandate.  She thought that Moshe’s ascetism and celibacy had the effect of belittling her piety, standing and stature as a prophetess of Israel.

Miriam’s challenge is therefore interpreted by Rashi thusly:

“Hasn’t [God] spoken to us too?” Yet we have not abstained from marital relations.

הלא גם בנו דבר: ולא פרשנו מדרך ארץ:

[Tanchuma Tzav 13]

To which, God responded that Moshe is indeed a greater prophet!  Moshe is neither showing off or belittling her.  Rashi makes clear that this is not a simple story about family gossip and sibling rivalry.

Now we can also understand God’s cryptic comment comparing Miriam’s harsh words to spitting in the eye of a father. The object of Miriam’s comment may have been Moshe, but the silent subject of her criticism was HKB”H!

In each of these examples, the words and deeds did not tell the whole story.  Gehazi was seeking personal gain at God’s expense.  Miriam was not just gossiping about Moshe’s intimate marriage; she was challenging her brother’s bond with HaShem.  Moshe wanted a guarantee of success before leaving the comfort of his ranch.

The proper punishment for these acts of disrespect is tsaraas, a disease that is also a misdirection. For tzaraas appears to be physical in nature but is not.  It is the Biblical equivalent of the Scarlet A, announcing that the sufferer has sinned against God.

Gehazi’s sin may have been relatively small but it had a ripple effect and caused lasting damage.  That is why Gehazi is exiled for a lifetime.  Miriam is healed quickly but is removed from the camp of seven days.

And Moshe?  His tzaraas was cured almost immediately, leading Chazal to teach: מדה טובה ממהרת לבא ממדת פורענות, “the Divine attribute of Goodness comes quicker than the Divine attribute of Punishment.”  TB Shabbos 97a.

May we, who are feeling a lot like meztoraim these days, also experience God’s Grace and Goodness speedily.

Shabbat Shalom!

[1] This D’var Torah draws heavily from Menachem Ben-Yashar’s “Why Leprosy”, https://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/metzora/beny.html

[2] A “Metzora is someone afflicted with Tzaraas, a leprosy-like skin affliction.  The connection between tzaraas and leprosy appears to be based in part on the Septuagint’s use of the Greek work lepra (λέπρα).  When I use leprosy in this D’var Torah, I am referring to the Biblical condition of tzarras, not the medical condition.

[3] It is ironic that our parsha, which is named after and focuses on the disease, is silent about its underlying causes.

 

[4]. A similar situation is found in connection with a nameless sinner in the Chumash who is executed for gathering wood on Shabbos.  Num. 15.  Rabbi Akiva informs us that this unnamed man was Zelofchad.  Akiva is then rebuked by Yehuda ben Beteira:

 

In either case you will be judged in the future for this teaching. If that the wood gatherer was Zelophehad, the Torah concealed his identity, and you reveal it [this speaking lashon hara and also exposing a truth that the Torah wanted hidden]. And if the wood gatherer was not Zelophehad then you are unjustly slandering that righteous man.

אמר לו רבי יהודה בן בתירא עקיבא בין כך ובין כך אתה עתיד ליתן את הדין אם כדבריך התורה כיסתו ואתה מגלה אותו ואם לאו אתה מוציא לעז על אותו צדיק

[TB Shabbos 96b]

 

[5] Gehazi is introduced in Ch. 4.

[6] This is part of the same suggya in FN 4 above.  In this continuation, Rabbi Akiva claims that Aharon was also inflicted with Tzaraas, even though the text of the Torah is silent on the matter, whereupon Yehuda ben Beteira again chastises Akiva for being a whistleblower.