Vayikro
Book 3: Leviticus


TAZRIA - NOTES ON RASHI COMMENTARY


Chapter 12 - Text Notes

1 That is, the teaching regarding the status of purity and impurity accompanying a person's birth (Y.T.).

2 In chapter 11 above; Vayikro Rabbo 14, 1.

3 That is, the mention of conception, which seems unnecessary;"when a woman gives birth" is sufficient, since no state of impurity begins with conception. Because of this, "conceives" and "and gives birth" are compared to one another in a {Hebrew Ref} , the comparison of two words which the Torah juxtaposes; see Niddoh 27b. "Even if she gave birth in the same manner as she conceived"---the laws of childbirth apply. The natural abortion resembles the conceptum, the fertilized egg; it is shapeless.

4 I.e., regulation.

5 This cannot refer to the time period of impurity, as might seem to be the case from a plain reading of the verse, since the Torah does not make such casual observations which tell us nothing new. Thus, this phrase must refer to other laws of menstrual impurity ( {Hebrew Ref} ) which apply to the impurity of childbirth as well. These rules include those which govern the transfer of impurity from the niddoh to others by touch, etc.(M.).

6 Niddah 21a. Ordinarily, menstrual or similar impurities are caused by the appearance of blood from the womb; however, if this were the case here, there would be no need to mention it,since a woman giving birth would be considered a {Hebrew Ref} plain and simple (M., G.A.).

7 Niddah 9a.

8 Literally, "she must sit."

9 Devorim 1, 26.

10 Bereishis 13, 18.

11 That is, the staining which occurs at this time is not considered as menstrual blood.

12 Without a dot (a {Hebrew Ref} ) in the heh, which would signify "her"; see Rashi's next comment.

13 Which means merely "purity" or "purification" without a possessive.

14 That is, the heh at the end of the word has a dot in it,signifying that it carries the meaning of the possessive "her"---in this case, "her purity."

15 That is, the thirtieth, fortieth or fiftieth of the crop set aside for kohanim, and which has a certain semi-holy status,but is not, strictly speaking, "holy." It it therefore included in this halochoh by the inclusion of "anything holy." However,since there is still a difference in status between {Hebrew Ref} and sacrificial flesh, the new mother may still not eat holy flesh even though she may at this point (after sundown) eat {Hebrew Ref} ; see Rashi on verse 7 below.

16 The mother who has just given birth.

17 That is, the sunset of the day after which she finally becomes ritually pure, after the periods of purification set forth in verses 4 and 5; see next note.

18 That is, the seven days just mentioned, plus the thirty-three days of verse 4.

19 75a. The Gemoro continues: "A warning to one who eats [holy food], or perhaps it refers only to one who touches? The verse says: 'Anything holy she shall not touch and the Sanctuary she shall not enter.' It [thus] compares [makish] holy food to the Sanctuary. Just as entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity [involves] the taking of a life [= {Hebrew Ref} , death at age fifty to sixty without offspring, see Bemidbar 19, 20], so too [this prohibition involving] holy food [is a matter involving] the taking of a life [= death at the hands of Heaven, see Vayikro 22, 6--9], and there is no taking of a life involved in touching [holy food, but merely the punishment of lashes]. And the reason that [eating] was expressed by a term denoting [touching is to teach us that] touching is like eating [in that one forbidden to eat is forbidden also to touch holy food]."

20 Since the verse does not say {Hebrew Ref} , he shall bring them, it teaches us that only one of the two sacrifices, i.e., the lamb and the bird prevent her from eating holy food.

21 Literally, "here."

22 Literally, "called."

23 And could not come into contact with holy things, as provided in verse 4. Rashi here wishes to emphasize that after sundown on the fortieth day she may eat {Hebrew Ref} even though she must wait for the next day's sacrifice for her purification to be complete in order to eat sacrificial flesh.

24 I.e., the burnt-offering.

25 Perhaps because it is totally dedicated to G-d, while parts of the sin-offering are eaten by the owners and the kohanim.

26 89b-90a.


Chapter 13 - Text Notes

27 These diseases have long been incorrectly identified with leprosy due to a misleading translation in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible. According to many commentators,as well as Tosefta Nego'im 6:1, the disease was actually of supernatural origin, and it is thus no wonder that it cannot be exactly identified with any modern malady.

28 As described in Mishnah Nego'im 1:1: The colors of the signs of skin-eruptions are two which are really four. The spot of bright spot, white like snow; second to it is the sign as white as the whitewash [used in] the Temple. The off-white spot is as white as the skin of an egg; second to it is the sign as white as [the] wool [of a day-old lamb just washed]---so R. Meir, but the Sages say: the off-white spot is as white as white wool and second to it is the sign as white as the skin of an egg. According to the Sages, then, the order of signs in order of whiteness is: skin of an egg, white wool, Temple-whitewash, and the whitest is snow.

29 Iyyov 37, 21.

30 Sifra Nego'im, par. 1, 9.

31 As opposed to a case in which it turned white before the skin-disease erupted, in which case the white hair is not a mark of impurity (G.A.).

32 The word {Hebrew Ref} refers to "hair" as a collective noun,while {Hebrew Ref} refers to an individual hair. Here the first word is used, and so, even though the accompanying verb is singular,the question naturally arises: How many hairs must turn white to constitute a sign of impurity? One, or all, or something in between? (G.A.) Malbim notes that if the verse had wished to specify one hair, it would have used the word {Hebrew Ref} ; since it did not, two are intended. It may be wondered why all the hair in the skin-mark need not turn white; G.A. notes that the appearance of two hairs are halachically significant in a number of other cases, as in indicating puberty.

33 Otherwise, why did the verse not merely state "He is unclean;" why the more awkward "declare him to be unclean"?(G.A.).

34 Unlike other cases of impurity, which do not have to be so declared.

35 Since, as Rashi notes in his comments to verse 3, a white mark will always appear "deeper" than a dark background. The Ramban explains that, since the hair has not turned white,the skin-eruption's whiteness is dimmed by the black hair within it, and so does not seem so deep. Many commentators wonder why Rashi seems to have rejected this simple explanation; D.D.suggests that Rashi here intends to point out that this interpretation is not found in the Talmud or Sifra, and is therefore not altogether authoritative. His confession of ignorance is thus a rejection of this explanation.

36 The kohein.

37 The man afflicted.

38 But not outside the camp, to which he is expelled only after being declared unclean by the kohein (G.A.).

39 By the kohein for another examination.

40 This latter comment refers to the next part of the verse,"the skin-eruption did not spread in the skin."

41 Only if the mark did not spread, but remained as it was,is he confined for a second week.

42 Since the verse specificies that he becomes pure only if the eruption dims, other possibilities result in impurity.

43 L.B. suggests that Rashi intends by this comment to explain why this verse changes gender from hu' ("it" in masculine gender) to feminine hi'; the reason is that the reference is not to {Hebrew Ref} , "eruption," which is masculine, but {Hebrew Ref} , which is a feminine noun.

44 Even though this confinement was a result of a doubtful state, and he was not definitely unclean.

45 Literally, "called."

46 And no longer in a doubtful intermediate state.

47 As described in the purification ritual of chapter 14.

48 That is, this {Hebrew Ref} , which ordinarily is not unclean, as Rashi noted in his comments on verse 6, has in this case become a {Hebrew Ref} , an eruption which is ritually unclean.

49 And therefore the word tzora'as takes the feminine demonstrative "she [is]." Thus, the alternation of {Hebrew Ref} , "he," and {Hebrew Ref} , "she," are not inconsistent; one refers to tzora'as and the other to {Hebrew Ref} (M.).

50 I.e., the color.

51 Literally, "or."

52 See the Mishnah quoted above in n. 28 for the secondary types of skin-disease. This rule applies to all eruptions because of the seemingly unnecessary mention of the general tzora'as at the opening of verse 9, which refers to "an eruption of tzora'as" in general, even though the rest of the section only describes one type (L.B.).

53 This comment does not appear in the first printing of Rashi's commentary.

54 And not "the eruption," which is the subject of the sentence (M.).

55 Literally, "to the sight of the kohein 's eyes."

56 Literally, "whose light has darkened." This halochoh is derived from the seemingly unnecessary mention of the kohein's eyes; Sifra Nego'im, per. 4, 4.

57 In verse 11.

58 That is, as stipulated in verse 12, the eruption must be seen by the kohein in its entirety in order to be declared unclean; if this is not possible because of the slope of the limb upon whose skin the eruption appears, the eruption cannot be declared unclean and is therefore clean; see Mishnah Nego'im 6:7,Kiddushin 25a.

59 And therefore fatter and thus broader. Once the limb becomes filled out, the eruption can be seen from all sides.

60 Sifra Nego'im, per. 5, 1.

61 Which seems unnecessary; when the word can can be expressed with the letter {Hebrew Ref} ; why then does the verse employ a longer form ( {Hebrew Ref} , "and on the day"), when {Hebrew Ref} alone would be sufficient?

62 Literally, "they give him."

63 The week of sheva berochos after the wedding. The bridegroom is "given" these days so that he need not worry about being declared unclean or being confined or quarantined during his wedding feast.

64 All of which may be subject to some sort of tzora'as, as explained in the following sections.

65 I.e., Pesach, Shevuos and Sukkos.

66 Literally, "they give him."

67 Mishnah Nego'im 3, 2; [Gemoro] Moed Koton 7b. A kohein does not examine eruption during festivals, and so not only the bridgegroom, but everyone is free of that worry during these times of the year.

68 "It" refers to the flesh and not the tzora'as; see below.

69 And therefore takes the masculine demonstrative {Hebrew Ref} , "he." The word tzora'as is feminine and would take a feminine {Hebrew Ref} .

70 Chullin 8a.

71 Rashi wishes to emphasize that it is the inflammation that has healed, but not the flesh, since the verse stipulates that the inflammation has been replaced with another eruption (G.A.).

72 Rashi here substitutes the phrase "skin eruption" for the verse's "snow-white spot" to emphasize that this rule applies to all four types of skin eruptions (M.L.).

73 See verse 3.

74 Once again, Rashi notes the use of a feminine demonstrative, thus referring not to the nega', the skin eruption, which is masculine, but to the two specific types of eruptions which he enumerates (B.Y.).

75 Literally, "beneath it," which can also mean "in its place," as Rashi explains.

76 Yechezkel 21, 3.

77 "To contract."

78 Meaning "contraction."

79 Into two separate parshiyos?

80 To make up the mininum size for impurity, which is a gris,a half-bean size.

81 Which is the minimum size of an eruption; Chullin 8a.

82 Literally, "this." That is, the sign of impurity for eruptions in fleshy parts of the body is a white hair.

83 Literally, "this."

84 Again, "hair" here refers to the minimum of two individual hairs, and the hair must change to yellow from another color ("black"), just as in other cases of skin eruption. This is derived from the juxtaposition of {Hebrew Ref} , "skin eruption" and nesek (by means of a {Hebrew Ref} , the juxtaposition of terms), which indicates that the rule applying to one applies to the other (L.B.).

85 Verse 37 below.

86 Mishnah Nego'im 10, 5; Sifra Nego'im, per. 9, 7.

87 The phrase "certainly spreads" is {Hebrew Ref} in Hebrew; the combination of the two forms of the root p-s-h expresses an intense form of action; thus, even if the spreading takes place during the first or second week, the afflicted person is unclean.

88 This seemingly extraneous "and" implies that there are colors which are signs of purity even though they are not black.

89 This phrase is very unlike Rashi's usual style; moreover,the word {Hebrew Ref} , "expression" appears in the first printing as {Hebrew Ref} "for what." It is likely that Rashi's comment was: And what does tzohov resemble? The appearance of gold.

90 Pale gold.

91 Since the verse requires that the afflicted person be clean as well as being declared clean, we should not think that it all depends on the kohein, even if he is mistaken (G.A.).

92 The Hebrew word {Hebrew Ref} means a "white spot," but its shape is not altogether clear from the word {Hebrew Ref} and thus Rashi explains it.

93 The last line in not in the first printing of Rashi's commentary; Y.H. suggests that it was added later.

94 That is, like the whiteness of the skin between the freckles.

95 Since freckled people tend not to tan, but rather to burn,their skin may be whiter than those who do tan. This is the color intended: the white hue of untanned and unburnt skin between freckles.

96 Though M. quotes these words, they must have fallen into the text of Rashi in error, because they contradict the Mishnah at Nego'im 10, 10; reliable manuscripts do not contain them (L.B.).

97 Mishnah Nego'im 10, 10.

98 Including other shades of white---how do we know that all the skin eruptions which have signs of uncleanness are indeed unclean when they appear in the front or back, where baldness occurs?

99 Which comes to include all other types of skin eruptions which may appear in hairy parts of the head.

100 13, 2 above.

101 As set forth in Mishnah Nego'im 1, 1; see n. 28 above.

102 Set forth in verses 45--46.

103 Once again, the doubled verb for emphasis implies a wider or more intensive halochoh; see n. 86.

104 In the next verse.

105 As a sign of mourning for his unclean and isolated state; just as a mourner makes a tear in his clothes as a sign of his sorrow.

106 Moustache.

107 Sifra Nego'im, per. 12, 7; Moed Koton 5a.

108 Arochin 16b.

109 The Israelite camp in the wilderness was made of three concentric encampments: one for the Israelites, one for the tribe of Levi, and one for the Tabernacle.

110 Rashi here wishes to ensure that we not misunderstand the particle vov, which can mean either "and" or "or." Here it definitely must mean "or," since verse 52 below specifically uses the word o, "or."

111 That is, leather which has not been cured, but with which a container was manufactured; though it is not cured, it still may become unclean because it does serve a function; see Mishnah Kelim 17, 15 and the commentary of R. Shimshon of Sens on it (B.B.).

112 It was cured, and a container was made of it; this is the usual type of skin container which can aquire uncleanness.

113 Literally, "green among the greens."

114 Literally, "red among the reds."

115 Yechezkel 28, 24.

116 Sifra Nego'im, per. 14, 11. Rashi cites a midrashic explanation because he feels the plain sense is somewhat insufficient here, since it is clear that a tzora'as will be uncomfortable and prickly. Thus, he adds the Midrash which relates {Hebrew Ref} to the word {Hebrew Ref} , "curse" (L.B.).

117 The juxtaposition of the word {Hebrew Ref} , "it," to the phrase "it shall be burnt in fire" yields the exclusion presented. Strictly speaking, that {Hebrew Ref} is not necessary, and may be used for midrashic purposes.

118 The garment.

119 Sifra Nego'im, per. 15, 1.

120 Literally, "that which is in it."

121 Thus indicating that more than just the affected place is to be washed.

122 And not the entire garment.

123 That is near to the place of the eruption.

124 But remained as is---it is nonetheless unclean.

125 It is not clear that the sign of turning color is worse than if it remained the same, since according to our verse, even if the eruption did not turn color, the garment is unclean; which alternative is worse? That is the question Rashi raises in the name of R. Yehudah (M.). Put another way, verses 51--54 deal with cases in which the {Hebrew Ref} spreads or does not spread, but not at all with the question of a color change; these possibilities come into play only during the second week of confinement. But verse 55 decrees that even if the {Hebrew Ref} remains unchainged in size and color after the garment is washed, it is nevertheless unclean, and must be burnt. If it fades, the {Hebrew Ref} itself must be torn out of the garment (verse 56), and if the {Hebrew Ref} reappears, the garment is burnt. The case of color change, unless it fades entirely, in which case the garment becomes clean (verse 58), is not dealt with directly. To what shall we compare it?

126 Verse 50.

127 Thus, it must be reexamined even in the case of doubt which Rashi just raised; this then is the decision in the case of color change.

128 Sifra Nego'im, per. 15, 7. Sifra continues, according to the reading of the Ra'avad: But the Sages say: It is definitely unclean since it has remained unchanged. How then do I interpret [the verse]: "behold, the eruption did not change its hue"? [It remained] in whatever hue [made it] unclean.

129 Instead of in its proper place above.

130 Shmuel II, 17, 9.

131 Sifra Nego'im, per. 15, 8.

132 Literally, however, the words refer to frontal baldness ( {Hebrew Ref} ) or baldness in the back of his head ( {Hebrew Ref} ); the question is what these expressions mean when transferred to a garment; and this Rashi proceeds to explain.

133 One of the thirteen major principles of midrashic interpretation, whereby the occurence of a similar word in two places teaches us that the rule which applies to the one applies to the other. These teachings have been transmitted from Moshe at Sinai. In this case, the unusual use of these words in this context signals the presence of a {Hebrew Ref} .

134 I.e., baldness in back of the head, "the end."

135 I.e., frontal baldness, "the beginning."

136 Verse 41 above.

137 Sifra Nego'im, per. 15, 9.

138 As the next verse explains: "it is a recurrent outbreak of {Hebrew Ref} ; you shall burn it in fire"---thus indicating that whatever is affected by the {Hebrew Ref} of garments must be burnt, even this scrap of cloth.

139 As the verse stipulates: "you shall burn it"---all of it.

140 As in verse 54.

141 Meaning that the garment is cleaned by being washed.

142 I.e., immersed.


Return to Main Search Form
Sources