The Guilt of the Metzora
Natural disease or divine retribution?
Is the affliction of Tzara'at contingent on a transgression? The answer to this question is not as simple as one might expect. The Torah devotes 116 consecutive verses
to detailing the symptoms and the purification process of a Metzora, yet it
does not link the cause to any particular transgression. The verses appear to describe
various naturally occurring skin diseases (though apparently not leprosy),
followed by apparent cases of fungi and mold outbreaks affecting fabrics and
buildings.[1]
The laws of Tzara'at appear within a wider unit comprising other causes
of impurity, including childbirth, menstrual and other bodily flows. As these
conditions are natural and not reflective of any sin, there is no reason to
assume the various forms of Tzara'at are of a different order.[2]
The regulations for dealing with the Tzara'at also seems to be medically
informed. The need for quarantine is consistent with infectious disease control,
whilst destruction of fabrics or building infrastructure is a well-attested
approach for containing extreme cases of fungus/mold contamination.[3]
It should be noted that the fact that a Chatat is brought by the Metzora
does not necessarily imply a transgression. Suffice to point to the other cases
of ritual contamination which require a Chatat offering as part of the
purification despite the fact that no sin has been committed. Similarly, a Nazir
brings a Chatat upon the successful fulfilment of his Nazarite vow, even though
this is apparently a positive achievement.[4]
The fact that public Chatat offerings are brought on the festivals and at the
inauguration of the Mishkan also seem unrelated to specific sins.[5]
Whilst often translated as a sin offering, it is more accurate to refer
to the Chatat as a 'purification' offering after the act of purification (the chituy)
which the Kohen performs on the Mizbe'ach by smearing the blood on the four corners
(see Ex 29:36 and Lev 8:15). The principle is that the Mizbe'ach itself requires
purification when impurity has been introduced, even outside the immediate vicinity
of the Mishkan.[6] The deliberate
smearing of the blood upon the horns of the altar constitutes the essence of the
purification.[7]
The common understanding of the Chatat must therefore be flipped on its
head. The primary purpose of Chatat is in fact related to ritual purification. The
novelty the Torah introduces is that sin defiles the Mishkan, and particularly
the Mizbe'ach, in a parallel manner to ritual impurity. As for ritual impurity,
the Chatat has the capacity to purify this form of spiritual contamination as well. The association
of these two forms of impurity (ritual and spiritual) imbues sin with a
metaphysical quality which upgrades its severity in the human conscience. We
will shortly return to this point.
If the Chatat of the Metzora is not an indicator of sin, what evidence is
there that a Metzora's condition constitutes divine retribution more so than
any other natural disease? To be clear, the fact that Tzara'at is a natural
phenomenon and some of the regulations include sanitary or prophylactic
measures, does not in of itself preclude a sin-punishment cause and effect. The
question I am focusing on is if there is internal evidence that such a
relationship exists.
To address this point, we need to briefly survey the cases in Tanakh where
Tzara'at appears.
1) The most prominent case of Tzara'at is that of Miriam who is afflicted
with Tzara'at after speaking negatively about Moshe (Num. 12:1). The Torah directs
us to recall this episode immediately following the instruction to 'take heed
of the Tzara'at affliction and diligently observe what the Kohanim instruct you'
(24:8-9). Whilst the verse itself appears to refer to the diagnosis and purification
process supervised by the Kohen, the juxtaposition with the verse about Miriam suggests
there is an underlying spiritual cause to be aware of.
2) King Uzziah is suddenly
stricken with Tzara'at when he offers Ketoret though not a Kohen himself (2 Chr.
26:16-21). The affliction apparently remains with him for the rest of his life.
3) Geichazi, the assistant of Elisha, is stricken as a punishment for
his attempt to deceitfully enrich himself when Elisha heals Naaman of his Tzara'at
(2 Kings 5:20-27).
On the other hand, there are other references where it is not obvious that
the disease is linked to a particular sin. As one of the three signs at the
burning bush, Moshe's hand presents with Tzara'at symptoms and is subsequently cured
(Ex. 4:6). Although this is assumed by some commentators as linked to his alleged
lashon ha-ra about the faith of the people (see Rashi), this does not
necessarily stem from the p'shat and appears to be somewhat of an imposition.
Regarding the story of Naaman whose Tzara'at is healed by Elisha, at no
point is there any suggestion within the narrative that Naaman had committed a
particular sin.[8] There
are other cases where the Tzara'at reference is neutral so far as sin is concerned,
but the absence is stark in this case as the account revolves entirely around Naaman's
Tzara'at and its cure.
With respect to Chazal's view, the position is far from clear or
unanimous. Whilst people are familiar with the link drawn to the specific sin
of lashon ha-ra (informed primarily by the Miriam episode), another Talmudic
passage lists out various unrelated sins as potential causes (TB Archin 16a). Elsewhere
the Talmud suggests there are at least some cases where Tzara'at is contracted
as 'afflictions of love' (TB Berachot 5b). Clearly it was not perceived as a one-to-one
relationship with any particular sin, and it was understood that the underlying
cause could not always be identified.
What emerges from all the above is a very relatable conclusion. The frightening
nature of the disease was perceived as potential divine retribution which was cause
for intense introspection. Many of the related laws around isolation, even if the
primary purpose was to contain the disease, help to advance that spiritual
objective.[9]
The above is a brief summary of a very complex topic. There is much more
to be said, but I would like to highlight a specific angle which can shed light
on the topic and I have personally not seen discussed much.
The Korban Asham of the Metzorah
We mentioned that a Chatat requirement is not necessarily due to a
failing, however that is not true of the Asham. Unlike a Chatat, there is no
precedent for an Asham to be brought other than in a negative context and this
is implied in its name which loosely translates as 'guilt'.[10]
As it relates to a personal failing it is the only type of Korban which is never
brought as a Korban Tzibbur (public offering).
Whilst the other cases of ritual impurity referred to earlier all have
in common the requirement to bring an Olah and Chatat as part of the purification
process, only the Metzora brings an Asham. The very requirement of the Asham therefore
points to an element of personal responsibility on the part of the one who was afflicted.
But it is specifically the nature of the Asham which encapsulates the nuance of
the position.
To understand this better we must consider more broadly the circumstances in which an Asham is brought. The first three cases are mentioned in the primary passage of the Korban Asham at the end of Parashat Vayikra.
- Asham Me'ilah – unintentional misappropriation of sanctuary property (hekdesh) for personal use. In addition to the Korban, the offender must make full restitution plus pay a penalty of an additional fifth.
- Asham Taluy – where one is unsure whether one has transgressed.
- Asham Gezeilah – where one defrauded his/her fellow and lied under oath to establish possession. As with the Asham Meilah, full restitution is required plus an additional penalty of a fifth.[11]
There are three further scattered cases where an Asham is mandated:
- Asham Metzora – on the eighth day of purification a Metzora is required to bring an Asham alongside the Olah and Chatat.
- Asham Shifcha Charufa – the circumstances are not entirely clear from the verse but appear to relate to a maidservant who has been acquired by a master and designated for future marriage though they are not formally betrothed. According to Chazal it refers to a case of one who had relations with a partially free Canaanite slave woman who was betrothed to a Jewish slave.
- Asham Nazir – a Nazir who unwittingly breaks his Nazirite vow (the text uses the specific example of coming into contact with a dead body) must restart the period of their vow.[12]
Various suggestions have been made to establish a common denominator between
the different cases.[13]
To me it seems that the most prominent feature common to all these cases is the
lack of a clear and identifiable sin, either because the sin itself lacks definition,
or because the negative effects have already been reversed.
Asham Me'ilah / Asham Gezeilah
In the case of Asham Meilah and Asham Gezeilah, there was a bona fide
transgression to begin with, but the critical point is that restitution has
already been made or imposed. What remains is the personal guilt of the
offender for the initial breach of trust but not so much the objective (metaphysical)
impact which typically requires purification of the Mizbe'ach (via the blood of
a Chatat).
To deal with this residual feeling of guilt and to restore the sense of relationship
with God, the Asham is mandated. It may even be argued that the purpose is to reinforce
the guilt resulting from the transgression but simultaneously provide closure to
enable the offender to move on.
Asham Shifcha Charufa
Shifcha Charufa case is another example where the full taint of a sin is
lacking and therefore the purification process involving the Chatat is not
warranted. Whatever the specific circumstance, the couple cannot be put to death
as the maidservant was only semi-formally engaged. The man
is nevertheless guilty of a breach of trust which must be acknowledged notwithstanding
that the threshold for adultery was not met. Accordingly, an Asham is
appropriate.
Asham Nazir
The case of the Asham Nazir is similar to that of the Asham Meilah and
Asham Gezeilah as restitution is also made here as the Nazir must restart the
period of his vow so that the days prior to the breach are completed anew.[14]
The effects have therefore been dealt with and what remains is to alleviate the
subjective guilt of failure.
Asham Taluy
The case of the Asham Taluy is the easiest but I have left it towards the
end as it resonates most with the Asham Metzora. In the case of the Asham Taluy
the entire experience is rooted in a lack of knowledge as to whether any sin
has in fact been committed. Such a person carries a feeling of guilt for a
potential unidentified sin.
There is an interesting debate whether the Asham Taluy necessitates an
uncertainty to have arisen with respect to a specific action or extends to a
general sense of guilt for having possibly sinned:
רבי אליעזר אומר, מתנדב אדם אשם תלוי
בכל יום ובכל שעה שירצה, והיא נקראת אשם חסידים. אמרו עליו על בבא בן בוטי, שהיה מתנדב
אשם תלוי בכל יום, חוץ מאחר יום הכפורים ז יום אחד. אמר, המעון הזה, אלו היו מניחים לי,
הייתי מביא, אלא אומרים לי המתן עד שתכנס לספק. וחכמים אומרים, אין מביאים אשם תלוי
אלא על דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת. (משנה כריתות ב:א)
The view of the Sages is far more technical and focused on a specific
act, whereas the view of R' Eliezer and Bava Ben Buta is much broader and encompasses
a guilty state of being.
The fact that the Asham Taluy is based on such a guilt factor rather
than an objective need, may shed light on certain laws. Although many of the
laws relating to a Chatat are transposed to the Asham, there are several notable
differences.[15] There
is a special rule that Yom Kippur atones for an Asham Talui requirement yet it
does not atone for a Chatat (TB Keritut 25a). Furthermore, according to some
opinions, one Asham can cover many different potential sins, whereas a separate
Chatat is required for each unintentional sin (TB Keritut 18a). These laws are better understood if the Asham focuses on the state of mind of the person rather than the metaphysical
contamination of the sin.
Asham Metzorah
The conscious experience of one bringing an Asham Taluy is mirrored in
the Metzora. Whilst the person who is liable to bring an Asham Taluy faces
uncertainty of his liability due to the nature of his actions, the victim of
the Tzara'at encounters a similar sense of uncertainty as a result of the affliction which is at
best indicative, but in no way confirmatory, of a transgression.
For reasons mentioned before, a person stricken with Tzara'at senses divine
retribution which rightly demands introspection. On the one hand, this feeling
is reinforced by the ritual impurity which follows in its wake. On the other
hand, the Torah does not provide any definitive cause or even say explicitly that
there is one. The role of the Kohen is simply to diagnose the symptoms, but he
makes no determination with regards to possible sin. Conclusions maybe only be drawn from
the person's own introspection. Once he is declared pure and the symptoms have
gone, he is ready re-enter the camp. It is the Asham which enables him to come
to terms with the uncertainty and alleviate his guilt.[16]
Postscript - The Asham as the Imposter Korban
Perhaps this can explain an additional point regarding the presentation
of the Asham in the Torah. Both Parashat Vayikra and Tzav deal with the various
types of Korbanot with the key difference being that Parashat Vayikra deals with the
journey from the owner to the Mizbe'ach including the slaughter and blood
service, whereas Parashat Tzav deals with the consumption by either the
Mizbe'ach or the Kohanim. For some reason, the Asham passage in Parashat Vayikra
does not state at all what happens with the ram once it is brought to the Kohen.
There is no mention of the Mizbe'ach, the slaughter procedure, what to do with
the blood, which parts are offered etc. Since these elements are not mentioned
in Parashat Vayikra, it should come as no surprise that Parashat Tzav compensates
by including them within the Asham passage there.
The explanation for this anomaly may relate to the enigmatic status of the
Asham. If there is no identifiable sin and the Mizbe'ach requires no
purification, then the Korban serves no objective purpose. The unique component
of the Chatat offering is the spreading of the blood over the horns of the Mizbe'ach
which shares no parallel with other Korbanot. This represents the stage of cleansing
or purifying the Mizbe'ach of the ritual or spiritual contamination. The idea
of a contingent Korban but lacking the purification capacity of the Chatat (the
blood of the Asham is not spread on the horns of the Mizbe'ach) seems to lack purpose.
Moreover, conceptually it seems problematic as if indeed there was no sin then the Korban may be regarded, in theoretical halakhic terms at least, as chullin be-azarah. Obviously once the Korban has been prescribed this is not truly a problem, but it highlights the novelty of the entire framework. In other words, the Asham is unique as within the world of Korbanot it really has no right to be offered up. Yet to ensure that an offender can relieve himself of his guilt whilst at the same time ensuring he is now more mindful of his actions, the Torah prescribes a Korban. Nevertheless, to retain the sense that the Korban addresses a particular psychological state rather than an objective 'need' of the Mizbe'ach, the Torah focuses the passage of the Asham on the delivery of the Korban to the Kohen but stops short of discussing any contact with the Mizbe'ach and detailing the sacrificial rite itself. In literary terms, the Torah distances the Asham from the Mizbe'ach.
This being the case, Parashat Vayikra
opens up with the Olah which is consumed in its entirety on the Mizbe'ach and
ends with the Asham which (again in literary terms) doesn't reach the Mizbe'ach
at all.[17]
[1]
Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, presents with different
symptoms and was apparently unknown in the region until the 4th century
BCE.
[2]
R' Shimon Bar Yochai (TB Niddah 31b) is recorded as saying that the
Torah requires a Korban for a new mother as she is assumed to have made an oath
owing to the pain of childbirth not to have further intercourse with her
husband. There are many apparent problems in the statement and I assume it
was intended as a psychological insight rather than literal (as seems to be the case
for many of the surrounding statements in the passage). R' S.R. Hirsch creatively interprets the statement as suggestive of a broader need for spiritual recovery following the intense
physical experience of childbirth (which is linked to Hirsch's broader theory
on the moral philosophy behind ritual impurity). See also TB Keritut 26a which appears to remove the literalism by acknowledging that this is not the real reason the Yoledet brings a Chatat.
[3] See
however commentary of R' Hirsch (appendix to Tazria) who forcefully argues
that the essence of the disease and its diagnosis is not related to any natural
phenomenon.
[4]
The view of the Ramban (Num 6:12) notwithstanding. Whilst R Elazar HaKapar
(TB Nazir 19a) also regards the Nazir as a 'sinner' he is not specifically
addressing the Chatat requirement. From the Talmud (TB Keritut 26a) it is clear that even if a sin is involved in the cases of Yoledet, Metzora, and Nazir, the purpose of the Chatat is to finalise the purification process to enable the consumption of sacrificial foods.
[5]
Though the Mishna (Shavuot 1:3-4) understands that the Chatat brought on
the various festivals atones for sins related to ritual impurity, particularly
contamination of the Mikdash, this too highlights the special capacity of the Chatat
to engage in ritual purification.
[6]
In light of this it is surprising that Beit Hillel do not regard its
absence as cause for invalidating the Korban (see TB Zevachim 36b). The only
Korban which does not have the term Isheh La-Hashem is the Korban
Chatat. Yonatan Grossman (Torat HaKorbanot, pp.54-59) suggests that this
is because, unlike other Korbanot, the primary purpose of the Korban Chatat is the
purification (chituy) of the Mizbe'ach achieved through the blood and from
whence it derives its name, and not the consumption of the meat by the fire of
the Mizbe'ach.
[8]
See however Bamidbar Rabbah 7:5 which has Naaman being afflicted for
being haughty (c.f. TB Archin 16a which links Tzara'at to haughtiness but does
not derive this from the Naaman episode). In any event this is not clear from the
text.
[9]
The Rambam's view, at least on the surface, appears to relate Tzara'at to
a miraculous phenomenon (see Hilkhot Tum'at Tzara'at 16:10). This is very uncharacteristic
of him and has sparked significant debate. It should be noted, however, that he
only states this with regard to Tzara'at on garments and houses, probably as it
was unheard of in his day and age. Ironically, it is now commonly accepted that
the ancients may have had diseases which have since disappeared or evolved as much
as we have diseases now which did not exist then (COVID-19 for example).
[10]
In some contexts Asham can refer to the punishment itself (see Gen.
26:10), or a form of compensation payment (see Num. 5:8).
[11]
The requirement that restitution is made before bringing the Asham is
only explicit by the Asham Gezeilah. Possibly the issue is more sensitive here
as the beneficiary of the restitution and the Asham are different, which is not
the case for the Asham Meilah.
[12]
In the case of the Nazir the Asham comprises a young lamb (keves)
one year of age rather than an adult ram (ayil). In the case of Metzora
it does not say explicitly that the keves needs to be one year of age, though
this is the way it is understood in Halakhah (see Rambam Hilkhot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot
1:24).
[13]
In terms of medieval commentators, see in particular Ramban (Lev. 5:15)
[14]
I once heard a suggestion from R' Itamar Eldar that, as far as concerns the p'shat, the
Asham is only brought after the lost days have been recounted. This is debatable but in any event, it
is true that the Asham requirement appears separately to the Olah and Chatat
only after it has been clarified that his Nazirite period must restart. Interestingly,
in the case of the Metzora, in contrast to the Nazir, the Asham precedes the
Chatat and the Olah.
[15]
Due to the equating of the Chatat and the Asham in the verse - ka-chatat
ka-asham - Chazal derived that certain laws of the Chatat can be
transferred to the Asham. For example, R' Eliezer derives that the lishma
requirement is essential to the Asham as it is for the Chatat and Korban (which is not the case for other Korbanot). The sages derive from
this same comparison that semikhah is required for an Asham even though
it is not written explicitly (TB Zevachim 10b-11a). Incidentally, the anomaly of
semikhah not being mentioned in relation to the Asham may be connected
to the fact that the details of the Korban Asham ritual are deferred to Parashat
Tzav (as discussed further below). Since Parashat Tzav focuses on the Kohanim
it is not appropriate to mention the semikhah which relates exclusively to
the owner (unlike the shechitah which can be done by either – but see commentary
of the Netziv on 7:2).
[16]
The ram used for an Asham is the only category of animal which cannot be
brought as a Chatat (which is either a bull, male goat, female goat, or female
sheep). I have wondered whether the reason for a ram in the case of the Asham
is linked to its surprise appearance at the end of the Akeidah. After Avraham
was told not to offer Yitzchak he offers a ram as a replacement to fill the
void. The ram of the Asham is also brought to fill the void of the Chatat which
cannot be offered.
[17] It is noteworthy that the blood of the Asham Metzora is placed on the person himself putting him at the centre of the ritual instead of the Mizbe'ach. This too seems consistent with the suggestion that the Mizbe'ach is altogether secondary in the case of the Asham (though Chazal derived that the blood is also placed on the Mizbe'ach, see TB Zevachim 47b-48a). A precedent for this ritual exists with the ram of the Milu'im where the blood was placed on the Kohanim. There are many unique features of the special Milu'im Korban which require separate study (including its lack of classification as a specific type of Korban). Unlike in the case of the Metzora, however, in the case of the Milu'im the verse states explicitly that the blood also went on the Mizbe'ach.
