Parshas Metzora
1. On the verse (at the beginning of our parsha) "זאת תהי׳ תורת המצורע ביום טהרתו גו׳" ("This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification…"), Rashi copies the words "זאת תהי׳ תורת המצורע וגו׳" ("This shall be the law of the metzora, etc.") and explains: "מלמד שאין מטהרין אותו בלילה" ("This teaches that he is not purified at night").
The commentators1 explained that Rashi's intent is as follows: the words "on the day (of his purification)" in the verse — which Rashi alludes to with "etc." — are superfluous, and therefore he explains that this word comes "to teach that he is not purified at night."
But it is difficult to explain it this way: a) Rashi copies from the verse the words "This shall be the law of the metzora," which have no connection at all to this explanation2. b) Precisely the word "on the day," which is the (only) word he is explaining, he merely alludes to with "etc."3!
We are therefore compelled to say that in Rashi's view, the main lesson is derived from the words "This shall be the law of the metzora," except that these words by themselves are not enough to compel his explanation. He therefore adds "etc." to allude also to the end of the verse, "on the day of his purification." That is, the words that he copies, in combination with (what is stated later in the verse, alluded to by) the "etc.," teach "that he is not purified at night."
This requires clarification:
a) Why does Rashi not explain simply that the lesson that he is not purified at night comes from "on the day of his purification" — especially since this is how it appears in the Toras Kohanim4 (and this is also the implication of the Gemara5)?
b) On the other hand: how is this learned from the words "This shall be the law of the metzora"6?
c) Why is Rashi precise to add the word "This teaches" (that he is not purified, etc.)?
2. The explanation of this is as follows: What is difficult for Rashi in the verse is that seemingly the words "This shall be the law of the metzora" are superfluous7. For it is self-understood that the discussion concerns the metzora, since this passage comes in continuation of the previous passage, in which the laws of the impurity of the metzora were stated, and it is to this that "on the day of his purification" — in our parsha — refers.
To resolve this question, Rashi copies the words "This shall be the law of the metzora, etc." and explains: "This teaches that he is not purified at night." That is, these words come to teach this law (as explained below in Section 4).
3. And why does he not prove from "on the day of his purification" that his purification is not at night?
In the plain meaning of Scripture, "day" (when it is not written together with — in contrast to — "night") does not mean to exclude night; rather, it means the entire twenty-four-hour period, day and night8, as is stated explicitly9: "ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד… הששי" ("And there was evening and there was morning, one day… the sixth"). Similarly it says10: "ששת ימים גו׳ וביום השביעי תשבת" ("Six days… and on the seventh day you shall rest"), meaning that the entire twenty-four-hour period of Shabbos is forbidden for work.
Moreover, we find "day" used regarding an event that took place at night, as it says11: "ביום הכותי כל בכור בארץ מצרים" ("On the day that I struck every firstborn in the land of Egypt") — yet the plague of the firstborn was "בחצי הלילה" ("at midnight")12. This proves that the word "day" [even where it is seemingly superfluous — as in our case, and as in the verse "On the day that I struck…," where it could have said "When I struck every firstborn…"] does not exclude night, for it means the entire twenty-four-hour period.
4. However, the (superfluous) words "This shall be the law of the metzora" teach us that "on the day of his purification," which is stated after them, means specifically by day and not at night:
These words are all expressions of precision; they emphasize (the particulars of) the matter of which they speak, and exclude its opposite:
"This" (zos, or zeh) indicates something clarified and precise, as Rashi explains on the verse13 "זאת אות הברית" ("This is the sign of the covenant"): He showed him the rainbow; and on the verse14 "החדש הזה" ("This month"), Rashi explains: He showed him the moon. And similarly in many places15.
"Shall be" (tihyeh) means (as in many places16) "בהוייתה תהא" ("it shall remain as it is").
"The law of" (Toras) means instruction in laws — the "law" of the matter and its halachos, the specific manner in which it must be fulfilled17.
From this it is understood that what is stated after these words is exact and specific. Consequently, "on the day of his purification" is also precise — specifically by day — "that he is not purified at night."
5. Based on this, we understand Rashi's precision (a) in copying the words "This shall be the law of the metzora," (b) in alluding to the word "on the day" only through "etc.," and (c) in the precise wording "This teaches that he is not purified, etc.":
Rashi emphasizes that the law "that he is not purified at night" is taught to us (not by what is stated in the verse, "on the day of his purification" — for according to the plain meaning the word "on the day" does not exclude night, as explained above at length — but rather) by what is stated18, "This shall be the law of the metzora" (from which we learn that the) "etc.," namely "on the day," is precise — and consequently, "This teaches that he is not purified at night."
6. Based on this, the question that the commentators19 raise on our Rashi is resolved simply. They ask: Why is a special lesson needed "that he is not purified at night"? It is impossible for the purification of the metzora to take place at night, since one of the components of his purification is the bringing of an offering, and night is not valid for offering sacrifices, as in the exposition of the Toras Kohanim20 on the verse21 "ביום צותו" ("On the day that He commanded"): "We have learned regarding all the offerings that they are valid only by day"?
But according to the above — that in the plain meaning of Scripture the word "day" does not exclude night — their question does not arise to begin with. According to Rashi's commentary on the Torah, which teaches according to the plain meaning, one cannot prove from the words "On the day that He commanded" that offerings are brought only by day21* (in addition to the main point — that in the plain meaning of Scripture it means the day on which he was commanded to bring the offerings, not the day they are actually brought; and therefore Rashi did not bring the above exposition of the Toras Kohanim in his commentary). Thus a special lesson is needed "that he is not purified at night."
7. Based on this, we can explain the following: In the Gemara22 (where it is learned that the purification of the metzora is valid the whole day, since it is written "This shall be the law of the metzora on the day of his purification"), Rashi explains: "For the purification of the metzora — with the birds, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the crimson wool." Seemingly this is not understood: a) What is he teaching us? The verse states explicitly what "the purification of the metzora" is. b) Why does he omit the offerings that the metzora must bring for his purification? c) Rashi should have explained this immediately on the Mishnah there: "The whole day is valid… and for the purification of the metzora"?
Rather, he comes to answer the above question: Seemingly, why is a special lesson needed that "on the day of his purification" means specifically by day — after all (according to halachah) an offering is not brought at night, as it says "On the day that He commanded"22*? He therefore explains, with precision, that the lesson from our verse that the purification of the metzora is by day refers (not to the offerings that he brings for his purification, but) only to the "birds, cedar wood, hyssop and crimson wool," which cannot be learned from "On the day that He commanded."
8. Among the wondrous matters, according to halachah, contained in this Rashi:
The lesson that the purification of the metzora must be specifically by day is expounded in the Gemara and the Toras Kohanim in positive terms: "The whole day is valid… and for the purification of the metzora," and "This teaches… and his purification is by day." Rashi in our parsha, however, departs from this and is precise to write it in negative terms: "This teaches that he is not purified at night."
There is a practical halachic difference when his purification (a detail that is indispensable to it) extended into a time that is neither day nor night — bein hashmashos (twilight)23:
The plain wording of the Gemara and the Toras Kohanim implies that the precision is that the purification must be specifically by day. Therefore, if his purification extended into a time that is not day, his purification is not effective, since it was not by day. According to Rashi, however, who writes "that he is not purified at night," if his purification extends into twilight it is valid, since it was not at night.
The reason may be explained as follows: It was explained above that according to halachah, "day" in many places — or at least in most places (including our case) — means specifically day (and not night). Therefore, from the words "on the day of his purification" it is understood that the purification must be specifically by day. According to the plain meaning, however, the word "on the day" itself means the entire twenty-four-hour period (including night), and it is only the superfluous words in the verse that "teach that he is not purified at night." It is therefore enough to exclude night alone (and not to exclude also the time of twilight).
9. In the inner dimension of these matters, the explanation of why the words "This shall be the law of the metzora" precede the passage of the purification of the metzora is as follows:
It is explained in Likkutei Torah24 that the matter of the metzora (metzora) is motzi shem ra ("one who spreads an evil name"): he brings out and draws down "names" (— letters and vessels) of kelipah. Therefore his rectification is through the study of Torah, which is the level of "names" of holiness, as our Sages state25: "כל התורה כולה שמותיו של הקב״ה" ("The entire Torah is the names of the Holy One, blessed be He").
This is the reason it is stated at the beginning of the passage of the purification of the metzora, "This shall be the law (Toras) of the metzora": the main rectification of the metzora comes (not through "והובא אל הכהן" ("he shall be brought to the kohen"), but) through (the study of) Torah ("the Torah of the metzora"), for it is Torah that transforms the level of an "evil name" into the level of a "good name" — names and letters of holiness.
However, in order that "the Torah of the metzora" be as it should be — that his Torah study be with bittul (self-nullification), for it is specifically Torah study of this kind that brings about the rectification of the metzora — "he shall be brought to the kohen" is necessary, for the kohen draws down "the light of Abba" — the quality of bittul.
(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Metzora, 5725)
Notes
1) Re'em; Be'er Mayim Chaim (on Rashi's commentary); and others.
2) Seemingly one could say that he copies these words to indicate the beginning of the parsha. But this is not so, for [in addition to the fact that in our case: a) according to Rashi*, the name of our parsha is "Zos Tihyeh" (Rashi, Tazria 13:8), so he would not have needed to copy "the law of the metzora" as well; b) and mainly: the question remains in place — why does he not copy the word "on the day," on which his explanation rests?] as has been discussed several times, from the fact that in many parshiyos (such as Parshas Va'eira and Kedoshim) Rashi did not write the name of the parsha at its beginning, it is proven that in his commentary on the Torah he did not set out to indicate where the parshiyos begin.
2*) This is also the view of Rav Saadia Gaon and the Rambam — cited in Likkutei Sichos, vol. 7, the first sicha on Parshas Metzora, at its beginning.
3) In contrast to the Toras Kohanim here, which does copy it. This is also the plain intent of the Gemara in Megillah (21a). As for why the beginning of the verse, "This shall be the law of the metzora," is also cited there (and similarly the words "the law of the metzora" in the Toras Kohanim) — one may say that it also alludes to the gezeirah shavah "Torah — Torah" in Megillah there, regarding giving the sotah to drink (in the manner of the Talmud in many places, to bring more than one derivation for a single halachah). Note: according to this it is proven that even for a law derived through a gezeirah shavah, [the Torah] took the trouble to write a verse for it (see the discussion of this, cited in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Mem, Kelal 26).
4) Here.
5) Megillah there — see above, note 3.
6) It is obvious that one cannot say that Rashi intends the gezeirah shavah "Torah — Torah" (as above, note 3), for (in addition to the fact that according to this he should have copied only the word "Toras") it is not mentioned at all in Rashi's commentary. Also: according to the plain meaning, the superfluous word "Toras" "comes to include, to say: one law for all…" (Rashi, beginning of Parshas Tzav). Similarly in our case, "the law of the metzora" means "one law for all metzora'im"*.
6*) As in the Toras Kohanim on this verse. Rashi did not need to cite it, since he relies on what he explained earlier (beginning of Parshas Tzav): "for every 'Torah' comes to include, etc."
7) See also the Alshich and the Ohr HaChaim here.
8) Regarding halachah — note the dispute in Shabbos (117b, end). See also Tzafnas Pane'ach, Ki Sisa 31:14; Malbim, Tzav, subsection 9; and sources cited there.
9) Bereishis 1:5–31.
10) Mishpatim 23:12; Ki Sisa 34:21.
11) Bamidbar 3:13; Beha'aloscha 8:17.
12) Bo 12:29.
13) Noach 9:17.
14) Bo 12:2.
15) See Rashi, Beshalach 15:2; Shemini 11:2; and elsewhere.
16) And regarding this very matter, see Menachos (5a; 19a; 27a). But Rashi here did not copy this exposition. See also Rashi, Behar 25:(11–12), where he is precise and explains the second "tihyeh" but not the first. This is not the place to elaborate. See also below, p. 133, note 23.
17) Note what is stated (end of Parshas Shemini): "זאת תורת הבהמה גו׳ להבדיל בין הטמא ובין הטהור" ("This is the law of the animal… to distinguish between the impure and the pure"), and Rashi explains: between [an animal in which] half of the windpipe was cut and [one in which] most of it was cut. For one may say that this is why the verse opens with "This is the law" — because its laws depend on a hairsbreadth (Rashi, Kedoshim 20:25). Note also the Gemara's initial assumption (Menachos 19a): Wherever "Torah" is stated… it is indispensable.
18) He also copies the word "the metzora" — meaning that the matters of "the metzora" are precise.
19) Sifsei Chachamim here (and he writes about this: "I found").
20) Cited in Zevachim 98a, and sources cited there; and also in Megillah 20b.
21) Tzav 7:38.
21*) This requires some examination in light of Rashi on Bo 12:2, s.v. "this": "How did He show him? Did He not speak with him only by day, as it says 'ויהי ביום דבר ה׳' ('And it was on the day the L‑rd spoke'), 'on the day that He commanded,' 'from the day that the L‑rd commanded,' etc."
22) Megillah 21a.
22*) And from "on the eighth day" (Shabbos 132a). Even according to the version of Rabbeinu Nissim Gaon there, which reads "it is a difficulty" — the rule is well known (see the sources cited in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Kuf, Kelal 30) that a difficulty is not a refutation.
23) The practical difference stated in the main text applies according to the view that twilight is an entity in its own right — neither day nor night. The same applies according to the view that it is composed of both. According to the view* that it is a doubt — possibly day, possibly night (see on all this Likkutei Sichos, vol. 4, p. 1223, and sources cited there), it is a doubt in Torah law, and the matter depends on the opinions as to whether such a doubt is treated stringently by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree (cited in Sdei Chemed, Kelalim, Ma'areches Samech, Kelalim 9 and 10, and elsewhere; and see Likkutei Sichos, vol. 7, p. 71ff., regarding Rashi's view — that it is treated stringently by Torah law).
Alternatively, one may say, based on what is explained in Likkutei Torah (Tazria 24a), that regarding nega'im "the matter depends on knowledge" (and therefore "[where there is] a doubt, the Holy One, blessed be He, says 'pure'" (Bava Metzia 86a), even though a doubt in Torah law is treated stringently; see there). If we say that also to release him from his impurity [the fulfillment] must be specifically known (this requires examination in the Rambam, Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas, end of ch. 2, and the commentaries there, and ch. 6, halachah 5ff.; see also the Rash, end of ch. 4 of Nega'im; Mishneh LaMelech, ch. 2 there, at the beginning), then just as we do not apply here the rule that a doubt is treated stringently, so too we do not apply here the principle of chazakah (presumptive status) — and since it is not known that he did not act properly, he is pure.
23*) Perhaps one may also say another view: that all of them apply to it, for at twilight there are three aspects: a) neither day nor night; b) both day and night; c) possibly day, possibly night. Note Tzafnas Pane'ach, Kelalei HaTorah VehaMitzvos, s.v. bein hashmashos, and sources cited there. Note also the koy and the androgynous (Bikkurim ch. 2; ibid. ch. 4). This is not the place to elaborate.
24) Our parsha, 24d ff.
25) Ramban, in his introduction to the Torah, based on Zohar II, 87a.
Key Lesson
Rashi teaches that the words "This shall be the law of the metzora" are words of precision, showing that the metzora is purified by day and not at night. In its inner meaning, this Sicha shows that the one who has damaged himself through evil speech is rectified mainly through Torah study — the "names" of holiness — when it is learned with true bittul.