From Parsha to Halakha Metzora: Is it a sin to be tamei?

 

Tazria and Metzora present physical states that render a person tamei (ritually impure) – giving birth and tzara’at (not leprosy, but a spiritual skin condition) and the method each person uses to return to a state of tahara (ritual purity). We began with the laws of a yoledet (a woman who just gave birth), continued with tzara’at, and then on to bodily emissions that render men and women tamei. Towards the conclusion of these laws God tells Moshe:

“V’hizartem (“You shall separate/warn”) the Israelites from their tuma (ritual impurity), and they will not die in their tuma when they defile (make tamei) My Mishkan (Tabernacle/dwelling place) that is within them.”^[1]

Caution or separate?

The purpose of this verse is debated, as is the meaning of the first word, v’hizartem. Ibn Ezra rejects the opinion that v’hizartem is “v’hizhartem” (the second hey is dropped), meaning “you shall caution or warn.” Instead, he favors Onkelos, Rashi, and others who explain that v’hizartem is from the term nezira which means prisha, separation or distance, often for the purpose of sanctity – like a Nazirite. This explanation corresponds with similar language in the introduction to the laws of a priest who is tamei: “v’yinazru mikodshei Bnei Yisrael,” “they shall separate from the Israelites sanctified [donations].”

Is there a difference between caution and separate?

Although it’s possible to explain the verse similarly regardless of the definition of v’hizartem, it seems that the different readings may correspond to different teachings. If we translate v’hizartem as caution or warn, as in “Warn the Israelites from their tum’a,” then it seems this verse does not include a new prohibition. Instead, it’s possible it conveys the gravity of laws we’ve already seen – entering the Mishkan when tamei defiles the Mishkan and can result in one’s death.

Alternatively, a warning may teach us to add a stricter precaution to an existing law. The laws of yoledet specify that she may not enter the Mikdash until she concludes her “days of purity.” A metzora may not even enter the “camp.”^[2] The midrash connects these laws with “v’hizartem” to teach the halakha that, like the yoledet, anyone who is tamei for any reason may not enter the Mishkan.^[3]

Chazal organize the restrictions of people who are tamei according to the description of the desert camp in Bamidbar. The camp consisted of three concentric zones centered around the Mishkan; people with certain types of tum’a were prohibited from entering based on the severity of the tum’a.^[4] These restricted zones were later applied to Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, and the Temple itself.

Caution and separate

Perhaps there isn’t a significant difference between “separate” and “caution.” Indeed, one midrash explains that this separation alludes to the law that a husband and wife may not be intimate “samukh l’vistan,” close to the usual time her menses begins.^[5] This separation is a stricture within the existing laws of nidda to avoid the halakhically problematic possibility of her menses beginning while they are intimate.^[6] In other words, it’s a separation that is also a precaution.

The explanations of v’hizartem that we have seen until this point have all related to the individual ensuring they are meticulous when observing the laws of their own tuma. Other halakhot integrating these terms and speak of a warning to ensure others separate or distance themselves from tuma. For example, according to the gemara we mark gravesites to ensure people avoid them and do not unwittingly become tamei.^[7] The sages offer different sources for this law, one of which is “v’hizartem.”

The laws of the metzora also indicate there’s a requirement to do what we can to ensure others do not unwittingly become tamei. The Torah states that a metzora must distinguish themselves in their appearance and call “tamei, tamei;” the sages teach that this is to inform others so they can keep their distance and avoid becoming tamei.^[8] The gemara notes that “tamei” is repeated because it is also meant to encourage others to have mercy on the metzora and pray for their recovery. Alongside a warning to physically separate from impurity we are reminded to maintain our emotional and spiritual ties to one another, even if they are an “outsider.”

Is tuma bad?

Returning to the verse “v’hizartem,” it seems the consensus is “they shall not die when they defile my Mishkan” refers to someone who is tamei and enters the Mishkan. Yet the verse itself does not mention entering the Mishkan. The pshat (plain meaning) of the verse could likely be that Moshe is told “Separate Israel from their ritual impurity” because the tuma of the Israelites surrounding the Mishkan also defiles the Mishkan in some way, even if they do not enter it when tamei, seemingly because it is “within them.”^[9]

A verse in Bamidbar similarly indicates that a tamei meit who does not purify themselves sins and defiles the Mikdash, without mentioning entering the Mikdash.^[10] In Bamidbar God commands Israel:

“Send out from the camp every tzarua, every zav, and every tamei l’nefesh. Send them out, from male to female, you shall send them outside the camp, and they will not defile their camps, that I dwell among them.”^[11]

Chazal explain that “their camps” indicates that each category is sent out of a different camp.^[12] Yet the pshat of these verses indicates that these people are sent out from “their camp” – which should mean the Israelite camp, or “camps” – which should mean all camps. Similarly, Devarim commands “safeguard yourself from every bad thing” when we go out to war, followed by a command to send tamei people outside the camp.^[13]

Furthermore, the Torah states that with the chatat offering of the goat on Yom Kippur the priest “v’khipper (attones or protects) the Sanctuary from the ritual impurity of the Israelires and their transgressions for all their sins, and he shall do this for the Tent of Meeting, which dwells with them within their tuma.”^[14] Since the Mishkan dwells within the Israelite camp, it is negatively impacted by the ritual impurity and sins of the camp.

Yet the midrash teaches that one is not obligated to purify themselves, and must only do so if they want to enter the camp.^[15] Accordingly, Rambam rules that the purification procedures involving mikvah and offerings are optional and not obligatory, with the exception of Pilgrimage festivals, when those commanded to visit the Mikdash must purify themselves if possible.^[16]

The relationship between the pshat and halakha

In each of these verses the pshat indicates the repercussions of tuma are far more extensive than the rabbinic practical halakhic application. The rule that “a Torah verse can’t be divorced from its plain meaning” tells us not to disregard the pshat, the Torah uses this phraseology to teach us something, even if that something is not the practical halakha. In this case, even though there is no formal prohibition against being tamei or remaining tamei, it seems the Torah encourages us to “separate” from tuma – to avoid contracting it and perhaps also purify ourselves as soon as permissible.^[17]

We can’t know for sure why certain states result in tuma. Ramban indicates tuma is the result of uncleanliness, but this is difficult to reconcile with all types of tuma. Rabbi Yehuda HaLevi may offer a more compelling explanation, which connects sources of tuma with death, or rather the absence of physical life.^[18]

Either way, it’s impossible to say that it is a sin to be tamei, since tuma is as impossible to avoid as death itself. Tuma is a part of life – beginning at the very start of life when a woman gives birth. Sometimes it is a mitzvah to become tamei – like giving birth and tending to the dead.

But even if we don’t understand why, the result of tuma is separation from sanctity and from God. Someone who is tamei is essentially exiled from the Mikdash. People whose tuma is caused by bodily emissions are also exiled from the surrounding areas, and a metzora was exiled from the entire Israelite camp in the desert and its counterpart, the city of Jerusalem.

Exile is also a result of sin. Adam and Chava sinned and were exiled from Egypt. A rotzeach b’shogeg, someone who commits negligent homicide, is exiled from their home to a City of Refuge. Israel sins, and they are exiled from their Land.

Both sin and tuma create distance between us and God. No matter the source, the Torah tells us not to be complacent about this distance. Every moment we are not allowed to be in sanctified places or deal with sanctified objects should affect us. Even if there is no formal mitzvah obligating us to purify ourselves when we are tamei, it’s clear the Torah wants us to separate ourselves and others from tuma – to avoid spreading it and purify ourselves as soon as possible.

[1] Vayikra 15:31

[2] Vayikra 12:4, 13:6, and Bamidbar 5:3. In Vayikra 14:40 the priest is commanded to remove the stones that have tzaraat from a house and cast them out of the city.

[3] Sifra Tazria 1:3

[4] TB Pesachim 67a; Tosefta Keilim 1:10; Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Biat haMikdash Chapter 3.

Chazal teach us that there were three distinct areas in the desert camp that correspond to three areas in Jerusalem.

At the center is the area of the Mishkan or Ohel Moed (Tent of Meeting) corresponding to the area of the Mikdash and is termed Makhaneh Shekhina, the camp of the Divine Presence. Rambam explains that there is both a positive mitzvah to expel tamei people from this camp, and a prohibition against tamei people entering. One who knowingly violates this prohibition is liable for karet (“cutting off” in this world or the next). (Bamidbar 5:2 and Vayikra 17:16.)

Makhaneh Levi’a, the Levite Camp where the priests and Levite families lived, surrounded Makhaneh Shekhina on all sides. Makhaneh Levi’a corresponds to the rest of the Temple Mount – such as the outer courtyards, until the Nikanor Gates which led to the inner courtyard. Chazal taught that people who are tamei may not enter this area, apart from a person who is tamei meit, ritually impure because of contact with a dead body. (TB Pesachim 67a; Moshe resided in this area and carried the bones of Yosef with him.)

The outermost camp is Makhaneh Yisrael, the Israelite Camp, which corresponds to the area inside the Jerusalem city walls. People who are tamei are allowed in the area, apart from the metzora, who is banished outside of all camps.

The gemara in Pesachim explains that a metzora has the harshest form of tuma since their tuma spreads to other things in the same tent or enclosed space, similar to the laws of tumat meit, a dead body.

The next group of yoledet, zav/a, and nidda have a slightly less serious form of tuma that does not spread to other things that share an enclosed space; they are not allowed in the two innermost camps. A tamei meit, on the other hand, is only distanced from the Makhaneh Shekhina because theirs is a less serious form of tuma; unlike the previous group their tuma does not spread by moshav or mishkav (sitting or lying on something).

[5] TB Nidda 63b

[6] This seems to be an asmakhta, textual allusion

[7] TB Moed Katan 5a. The gemara here specifically mentions perosh, separate.

[8] Vayikra 13:45.

[9] This reading is difficult because the verse says “and they won’t die” but only someone who enters the Mishkan while they are tamei is liable for death (according to the Torah and Chazal). Still, it’s possible the verse is saying they should separate from tuma because all forms of tuma in the Israelite camp defile the Mishkan, and can even result in death – perhaps specifically for someone who enters the Mishkan when tamei, or perhaps by disregarding a general need for tahara when possible, although this is not an idea we have  seen before.

[10] Bamidbar 19:20

[11] Bamidbar 5:2-3

[12] Pesakhim ibid. See details in note 4.

[13] Devarim 23:10-11

[14] Vayikra 16:16

[15] Sifra Acharei Mot 5

[16] Sefer Hamitzvot, Aseh 195; Mishneh Torah Hilkhot Tumat Okhlin 8:10.

[17] I first heard many of these concepts from Rabbi Dr. Mordechai Sabato in a class at  Matan and the article “Issur tum’a ba’Torah” by Yochanan Breuer in Megadim Vol. II. If these ideas are unclear or seem wrong, I apologize, the fault is in my interpretation and not the original material.

[18] Sefer HaKuzari Book II paragraph 60 and Orot HaKodesh Part II page 380.