Regarding Tzara'as of a house, Rashi explains that Nig'ei Batim are a good tiding for Klal Yisrael because the Emori'im hid valuables in their wall for forty years and Klal Yisrael was able to find them when they broke the walls in compliance with the Din of Nig'ei Batim.
The Rambam in Tum'as Tzar'as 16:10 writes that one who speaks Lashon Ha'Ra is first inflicted with Nig'ei Batim and if he doesn't do Teshuvah he is then inflicted with Nig'ei Begadim. If he doesn't respond to the Nig'ei Batim by doing Teshuvah he gets Tzara'as on his body and he is secluded from people.
Is this to be understood as a machlokes between Rashi and Rambam: Rashi sees
'leprosy' of the house as something completely separate from leprosy of the body and clothes, whereas Rambam sees it as something that gets gradually worse, starting in the house and ending up on the body? Or, can we say that, although Rashi, based on midrash, explains leprosy of the house as benefiting
the individual, it surly had to come about through the person sinning, and, if he continues to sin, he will eventually have leprosy on his body? (it would be
difficult to understand why he receives the treasures as a reward, if he is a person who is continuing to sin.)
Another question regarding Tza'ras:
The gemara is Erchin 15b and 16a explain that tza'aras comes from lashon ha'ra and R' Yochanan states another 6 sins. How does this comport with R' Yochanan in Kesubos 77b who accounts for the lack of Metora'im in Bavel due to the fact that they eat beets, drink beer and bathe in the Euphrates which makes it sound like a physical disease?
In addition, I sawwritten on a website that the Ralbag holds that Tzara'as is a physical ailment that can be treated medically.
.Would you know if this is an accurate quote of the Ralbag?
Thank you,
Donny
Donny, USA
(a) I do not think that this is to be understood as a Machlokes between Rashi and the Rambam. As you point out, Rashi is merely citing the Midrash Rabah Vayikra 17:6, so if we would look at it as a Machlokes, the question would rather be: Why does the Midrash not present a challenge to the Rambam's position?
(b) Rather, it seems to me that the Midrash is teaching us that there are good things in life, and there are bad things too, and sometimes the good and bad can actually come quite close together. Our job is to try and make use of the good to overcome the bad. I will try and explain what I mean, bs'd.
(c) If we look at the Midrash we see that it states: "Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu said: I promised to your forefathers that I would bring them into a land full of good, as is said (Devarim 6:11), 'And houses full of all good things.'" We learn from this that the treasure found in the walls is actually a fulfillment of Hash-m's promise to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yakov. Hash-m had to keep his promise even if Bnei Yisrael at that time were not worthy of the reward.
(d) The Midrash agrees with what Chazal say elsewhere that the "leprosy" comes as a punishment for Lashon ha'Ra. However, when Hash-m gives a punishment, He also often does Chesed to the sinner at the same time. The leprosy in the house caused a lot of suffering, embarrassment, and inconvenience to the inhabitants before they afterwards found the hidden treasures. Their trial is: when they find the treasures, will they also understand that this is also from Hash-m, not just the suffering they underwent when they were homeless?
(e) I saw a beautiful Peshat from the author of Aruch ha'Shulchan. It is printed at the end of Aruch ha'Shulchan on Yoreh Deah (3, Derush 23, page 144, DH ul'Dvareinu). Hash-m wanted to give wealth to the Bnei Yisrael, but he also wanted to make sure that they would make the best use of this wealth. So before Hash-m opened up the storehouses of silver and gold he first imposed suffering on them, which was of course no more than they deserved as an atonement for their sins. Once they had withstood this test of suffering, they were now capable of keeping the Torah while wealthy (see Pirkei Avos 4:9: "Whoever fulfills the Torah amidst poverty will eventually fulfill it amidst wealth"). When Hash-m finally will bestow prosperity upon them they will appreciate that "the Torah of Your mouth is better than thousands of gold and silver" (Tehilim 119:72).
(f) So Rashi agrees that if the person continues to sin, the leprosy will gradually get worse, but on the other hand if he does Teshuvah he will be able to make the best use of his bountiful blessing from Hash-m. I still have not answered all your questions, but b'Ezer Hash-m I will continue soon.
Your question from Kesubos 77b is a very interesting one and I have not found anyone at all who discusses this Gemara, so I will have to try and offer my own solution.
1) In fact, the Masores ha'Shas on Erchin 16a changes the text to read "Rebbi Yonasan." However, I can cite a different Gemara in Berachos 5b where again it is Rebbi Yochanan who states that Nega'im are not considered as "suffering of love." The Gemara questions Rebbi Yochanan from a Beraisa which states that Nega'im are considered a Mizbe'ach of atonement for the sufferer. In the second answer of the, Gemara the distinction is made between Eretz Yisrael and Bavel. Rashi explains that in Eretz Yisrael it is not considered "suffering of love" because the Metzora has to leave the city, but in Bavel, since he does not have to leave the city, it is considered a Mizbe'ach of atonement and suffering of love. We see that Rebbi Yochanan himself said that there are lepers in Bavel, which contradicts what he says in Kesuvos 77b!
2) To answer this question, I think one has to distinguish between two types of Tzara'as, a miraculous type and a natural type. I have found this distinction made by Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz zt'l, in his Sefer Ahavas Yehonasan on the Chumash and Haftaros. I saw it cited in "Ma'ayanah Shel Torah" on the Haftorah of Parshas Metzora.
3) In Ahavas Yehonasan (page 86, DH Pesach ha'Sha'ar), he points out that the Verse, "I will place a Nega of Tzara'as," seems to contradict another verse (Shemos 15:26): "All the disease (Machalah) that I placed in Egypt, I will not place on you." He answers that there are two kinds of Nega. The Nega of a Nochri is not Tamei because it is a contagious disease, which is why it is called "Machalah." In contrast, Nega is a Jewish disease, which is miraculous and not contagious.
4) Rav Yonasan writes that when Elisha cursed Geichazi (Melachim II 5:27) -- "The Tzara'as of Na'aman will cling to you and your seed forever" -- this meant a contagious disease, which is what Na'aman suffered from.
5) According to this, we can say that the Metzora'im -- which, according to Rebbi Yochanan, do not exist in Bavel -- are those with the contagious disease because the medical conditions were good there. In contrast, the Tzara'as he refers to in Berachos 5b is the miraculous type given as a punishment for Lashon ha'Ra.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Regarding the opinion of the Ralbag:
I looked up the commentary of the Ralbag on Parshas Tazria and Metzora (Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition, published in 5757). I do not think it is accurate to say that the Ralbag looks at Tzara'as as a disease like any other, but on the other hand it would be true to say that the Ralbag looks at this matter in a more naturalistic way than other commentaries.
1) I will start with a comment of the Ralbag in Parshas Metzora (page 201 in my edition). He comments on the fact that the Torah states that the Nega may be of a green or red color. The Ralbag writes that these colors tend to indicate mold and may often be found in sewage waters. Because it is not possible to heal this mold, the Torah commanded that such an infested item of clothing must be burned in order to prevent people from using it, as it is forbidden to derive benefit from it.
(On page 230 (of the Mosad ha'Rav Kook edition) the editor writes (in the notes at the bottom of the page) that a previous writer had understood from this passage that according to the Ralbag, Tzara'as is merely a physical disease. However, the editor attempts to prove from a different comment of the Ralbag that he maintains that Tzara'as is not only a physical matter: "Clothes and leather were chosen to become Tamei through Tzara'as because they are so well-used, worn next to a person's flesh, or by sitting and lying on.")
2) There is another significant statement in the Ralbag (Parshas Shemini, p.148): "The doctors tell us that if a woman becomes pregnant when she is a
Nidah the child will be a Metzora." The Ralbag writes in Parshas Metzora (p. 230) that this is because of the mold in the blood when she is a Nidah.
However, it should be pointed out that Chazal say something similar to this in Midrash Tanchuma (Parshas Metzora, end #1), that if one has
Tashmish with a Nidah the children will suffer from Tzara'as. The Ramban (Vayikra 18:19) writes in the name of the doctors that the Nidah blood causes different types of boils and blisters. The Ralbag goes slightly further than the Ramban by mentioning explicitly Tzara'as in the name of the doctors.
3) However, on p. 230, immediately after mentioning the connection between Nidah and Metzora, the Ralbag adds a very important comment: "It is as if the Torah is awakening us so that those slumbering will open their eyes." It seems to me that he is saying that the real reason why the Torah prohibited a Nidah is not because it causes a Metzora baby to be born. Rather, the Torah prohibited Nidah for a reason only known fully by Hashem; in order to arouse people to keep the Torah, a fact was created in the laws of nature that bad phenomena occur if one does not observe it.
I do not claim by any means to have done justice in this short answer to understanding the way of the Ralbag in his commentary on the Torah, but at least we may have touched on some of the important points.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Dear Dovid,
Thank you so much for your well researched answer to my question. Rashi, when quoting the midrash, is much more clearly understood in the context you presented it. Regarding the Ralbag, it seems from the source you provided that he was specifically referring to clothing. This fits in with your explanation regarding niddah and Tzara'as - We do not know why Tzara'as of clothes is prohibited by the Torah, but the Ralbag is explaining "a fact was created in the laws of nature that bad phenomena occur if one does not observe it." I think this is what you were leading to when making the comparison. If so, the Ralbag is not saying at all that the Torah's prohibition of Tzara'as is a physical concern.
Once again, thank you for the time you spent on my question.
Donny
1) Yes, the Ralbag also teaches that the underlying object behind all of the Torah's laws is spiritual, but it seems that Ralbag stresses more how the laws and the miracles of the Torah are dressed up in what is closer to a physical form. For example, in Shemos 14:21 the Torah tells us how Hashem made a fierce easterly wind blow for the entire night before Keri'as Yam Suf. The Ralbag comments that when Hashem performs wonders, he does so in a way which is not so far away from the laws of nature.
2) Here is just a quick comment made to me by a big Talmid Chacham to reconcile the Gemara in Berachos 5b with the Gemara in Kesuvos 77b that we cited above. It is along the lines that I wrote above, but stated in a very succinct way:
"In Bavel they had only 'Metzora'im Shel Ahavah.'"
The natural Metzora'im had been abolished from Bavel because of the health advances but we should not forget that Tzara'as can be a great benefit for the sufferer because it helps him become closer to Hashem. These beloved Metzora'im could still exist in Bavel.
Dovid Bloom
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom