Tazria - The Plague and Its Cure (Melakhim II 4:42-5:19)

1. a. Disease and cure vs. impurity and purification

Although the parasha is called "tazria" (conception), it deals for the most part with the various forms of "tzara'at" and it would seem that the name of next week's parasha, Metzora, would have been more appropriate. Next week's parasha too, obviously, deals with tzara'at. If we try to distinguish what it is that differentiates between them we may say that the first deals with the symptoms of the disease while the second addresses the subject of purification from the disease of tzara'at. A glance at our Haftora, however, reveals that it deals more with the purification of Na'aman than it does with his disease, and therefore it would seemingly have been a better choice for next week's parasha, which deals with the purification of the sufferer of tzara'at.

Thus we conclude that a distinction must be made between the purification from the impurity of tzara'at and the curing of the disease of tzara'at. The purification obviously does depend on the cure, for a person cannot be purified until he is cured of the symptoms, and we are told explicitly that the first step in the purification process is, "And the Kohen will see, and behold, the sore of tzara'at will be healed from the sufferer" (Vayikra 14:3). But the healing itself is not a stage in the purification process, and if the sufferer is not purified he remains in a state of ritual impurity, even long after all his symptoms are healed and have disappeared.

And just as we have distinguished between purification and healing, a similar distinction should be drawn between the disease of tzara'at and the impurity of tzara'at. Obviously a person who is not suffering from the disease cannot be declared impure on the basis of tzara'at. But someone who has the symptoms is not automatically rendered impure; he becomes impure only after being declared so by the Kohen – someone with the knowledge, the power and the authority to declare a person impure. Thus it seems that the story of Na'aman's tzara'at was selected as the Haftora for our parasha because of the sight that is common to them – the sight of tzara'at.

1. b. Kohen vs. prophet

The first thing we learn from the Haftora is that the phenomenon of tzara'at existed among non-Jews too, and was regarded by them as incurable, with no known medical remedy. Anyone seeking a cure for this disease was forced to turn to supernatural powers outside of the usual medical framework.

What does a Jew do in order to be healed from his tzara'at? The Torah gives us no elaboration. We know what he would do once he was declared impure: "The diseased man in whom the plague is, his clothes shall be rent and the hair of his head shall grow long, and he shall put a covering upon his upper lip and shall cry, "Impure, impure"" (Vayikra 13:45). But we know nothing of how he would be healed. This represents the central focus of the Haftora - the sufferer's efforts to be healed. Several personalities appear along the way: the captive Israelite girl, the king of Aram, the king of Israel, and they lead Na'aman to the prophet who apparently holds the key to his cure.

Thus there is a difference between the function of the Kohen and that of the prophet. The Kohen has the power to declare one pure or impure; the prophet does not have this power. But the prophet holds the key to the phenomenon itself. 

This may be a message for Bnei Yisrael, too, when they are struck with tzara'at: one must go to the kohen in order that he may declare the plague pure or impure, but if one seeks to heal the disease he must approach the prophet. A person would go to the prophet with a request to ask of Hashem: "They would go to the prophets to ask of Hashem, and the prophet would tell them, by his prophetic word, what they should do – each according to the foundations of his soul and the nature of his body. This is the meaning of, "man has the thoughts of the heart" – he has only to ready his heart to ask of Hashem with all his heart – "and the utterance  of the tongue is from Hashem" – via the prophet, as to how he should act" (Commentary of the Vilna Ga'on on Mishlei 16:1). Thus a person would go to the prophet seeking physical healing, but in addition– and more importantly – he would receive guidance concerning the diseases of his soul.

1. c. In whose hand is the key?

We have said above that the key is in the hands of the prophet. But it would seem that the real key lies in the hands of the sufferer himself. The prophet only guides him as to what to do, but he himself must perform the necessary actions. And this is the difference between what Na'aman thought the prophet would do for him and what he was actually commanded to do himself. He said, "Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand and call on the name of the Lord his God, and wave his hand over the place, and heal the tzara'at" (5:11) – i.e., he believed that the prophet would effect the cure. Instead, the prophet saw his role as involving only guidance: "Go and bathe seven time in the Jordan..." (5:10). And if Na'aman had not bathed as the prophet instructed him, he would not have been cured. Therefore we see that it is the sufferer himself who must act in order to be cured. While in the case of Na'aman this involved bathing seven times in the waters of the Jordan, an Israelite would immerse himself in the waters of knowledge and repentance and avoidance of slander; he would immerse himself in the wisdom of the Torah.

Shabbat shalom.

Translated by Kaeren Fish