Our Location
Next Services
The laws of Leprosy constitute the most stringent purity protocols in response to tumah. But if contagion was not the motivation for isolation, then what was the harm in touching a leper?
Rules of Engagement
As for the person with the leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip; and he shall call out, “Unclean! Unclean!” He shall be unclean as long as the disease is on him. Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.
– Leviticus 13:45-46
These laws constitute the most stringent purity protocols in response to טומאה; and it should be noted that the requirements of seven-day quarantine for a suspected leper and the removal of a confirmed metzora are drastically different.[1] It is often accepted that the social isolation of a metzora was to prevent the disease’s contagion,[2] which would be expected in most ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern contexts. However, any objective reader will note that if the reason for the leper’s confinement was to prevent contagion, then some of the laws in Leviticus 13-14 are nonsensical. For example, the Torah prescribes that household items should be removed from a house suspected of ṣāraʻaṯ so that they do not become quarantined when the priest examines the home. Obviously, if there were a real danger of contagion, then it would be irrational for these items to be excluded from the quarantine. What’s more baffling is the inexplicable law which says that if ṣāraʻaṯ covers a person’s entire body, he is clean! But if the skin begins to heal, he becomes unclean (13:13). Ironically, it was peculiarities like these that made possible many of the rabbi’s lenient rulings regarding the symptoms of leprosy.[3]
If contagion was not the motivating cause for isolation, what was the harm in socializing with a leper? The first and most obvious danger is the threat that a leper’s טומאה poses to the sanctity of the Temple. Like all cases of impurity, it is forbidden under the threat of being cut off [כָּרֵת] for the leper to enter the Sanctuary or eat the food offerings.[4] The second threat is to the sanctity of the people of Israel. In this regard, the regulations of the metzora are most stringent compared to other impurities.[5]
According to Numbers 5:2, a confirmed leper [צָר֖וּעַ] is sent out of the camp like any Zav[6] and anyone impure by reason of a corpse. These three cases are similar and dissimilar at various levels: The leper is like a Zav in regard to transmitting impurity (cf. Lev. 14:46 to 15:5-7), [7] but dissimilar in his required behavior and more stringent in the length of his purity process (Lev. 15:13-15). Furthermore, the leper is discouraged from any social interaction whereas the Zav isn’t. Again, contracting טומאה was not necessarily indicative a moral stigma. In fact, becoming unclean was normal and at times unavoidable, and somewhat inconsequential outside of Jerusalem on most days when there wasn’t a Jewish holiday.[8] However, the metzora was commanded to live alone (v. 46); which meant that he was not to mingle with normal society or with anyone that was impure from a cause other than leprosy.[9] To this point, one should take careful note that when Yeshua encounters lepers it always takes place in the country or on the outskirts of a city (Lk. 17:12). But when Yeshua is touched by a zavah the encounter takes place in a dense crowd.[10] Both the metzora and the zavah transmit impurity that requires the one who touches them to wash their clothes, immerse in water, and wait until evening to regain purity. The difference lies in social restriction. The fact that the Torah gives no details concerning how the leper transfers impurity is indicative of his social consideration – he receives none; but is left to call ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ as a social pariah. The Talmud (Pesachim 66b-67a), in an unrelated discussion, addresses the various levels of social impurities to which a leper and Zav/Zavah are excluded from the community. The relevant information to our discussion is succinctly summarized by Rashi in his commentary to Numbers 5:2.
Regarding impurity by a corpse, צָרַעַת is similar in that the condition is compared to death (Num. 12:12), and that a leper renders household items unclean by entering a home (Lev. 14:46-45) just as a corpse renders everything unclean in its proximity under the same roof (Num. 19:14-15).[11] The conditions are dissimilar in their potency to affect length of impurity[12] and the processes of making one clean, as טומאה from a corpse is the only impurity that qualifies sprinkling with the ashes of the Red Heifer (Num. 19:11-12).
With these distinctions established and clarified, it is possible to assemble a meaningful and insightful explanation of the leper’s isolation and behavior. The Torah requires three behaviors of a confirmed leper:
1) בְּגָדָ֞יו יִהְי֤וּ פְרֻמִים֙ – “his garments shall be torn;”
2) וְרֹאשׁוֹ֙ יִהְיֶ֣ה פָר֔וּעַ – “and his head shall be left alone [unkept];”
3) וְעַל־שָׂפָ֖ם יַעְטֶ֑ה וְטָמֵ֥א טָמֵ֖א יִקְרָֽא – “and he covers the upper lip, and ‘Unclean!
Unclean!’ he calls out.”
It is remarkable that the primary distinction of a metzora is in his appearance and conduct. In no other circumstance does the Torah require such idiosyncratic behavior. The only possible parallel can be deduced from the Qal passive participial phrase בְּגָדָ֞יו יִהְי֤וּ פְרֻמִים֙ – “his garments shall be torn;”– and appears in a negative commandment concerning a prohibition of the High Priest: “The priest who is exalted above his fellows… shall not bare his head [אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ֙ לֹ֣א יִפְרָ֔ע] or rend his garments [וּבְגָדָ֖יו לֹ֥א יִפְרֹֽם] (Lev. 21:10).” The same instruction is given to Aaron earlier in chapter ten after his sons, Nadav and Abihu, are consumed in the presence of the LORD (Lev. 10:6). The implication is that the Kohen Gadol is forbidden to engage in mourning rituals when he is on duty; and by extension, it is deduced that the leper is required to behave like a mourner upon his confirmation! [13]
One of the more esteemed biblical commentators in Judaism and the world of biblical criticism, Ibn Ezra, explains the following in his commentary to Lev. 13:45-46:
The word פרמים means rent. The leper is to be so dressed so that he may be recognized because of his abnormal garb. Or the leper is to behave like a mourner. Scripture therefore states, his clothes shall be rent, and the hair of his head shall go loose. The reason for the latter is so that the leper mourn for his actions, for this plague came upon him because of his deeds.[14]
It is important to bear in mind the lesson of Miriam when considering the case of the metzora; after all, the Torah commands us to do so. The notion that a leper suffers because of his own sin cannot be accepted in the world of rationalism.[15] However, it is the position of this paper that in the Bible, irrationality is often met by the miraculous. In truth, the only way to properly interpret the leper’s impurity is according to the standard by which the Torah defines itself, and through the lens of how its historic and cultural practitioners interpreted it.
Most theologians cannot accept the notion of a sinful leper because of Yeshua’s response in John 9:3. However, his response should not be taken as a blanket statement regarding all infirmities; for on multiple occasions Yeshua was known to warn sternly: “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest something worse happen to you (Jn. 5:14).” According to the Rambam,[16] the miraculous condition of צָרַעַת was not necessarily a punishment from God, but a signal for the stricken individual to turn from his transgression.[17] By all accounts, Yeshua’ sentiments toward the malady is the same, and was consistent with the contemporary views of his day: “Many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian (Luke 4:27).”
A more serious effort should be made on the part of New Testament readers to interpret Yeshua’s encounter with the leper(s) in view of its historic and cultural peculiarities; only then can the fullness of its spectacular nature be brought forth. Ibn Ezra’s interpretation is not simply a medieval Jewish innovation. The position has legal precedent that reflects the collective view of the Jewish world in antiquity. The Targum Onkelos[18] renders Lev. 13:45-46 as follows:
“Now the leprous person, on whom there is the affliction, his garments should be torn up and <the hair of> his head should be disheveled, and his upper lip should be covered like a mourner; and he shall declare, ‘Do not become unclean, do not become unclean, he should dwell alone; outside the camp should be his dwelling.”[19]
The Targum’s amplification confirms the following: 1) The earliest known authoritative Aramaic translation of the Torah regards the leper as a mourner. 2) The understanding of the early 2nd-century Jewish community [at the very latest] is that the leper’s cry was not for fear of contagion, but of polluting the people and the Sanctuary as indicated by the Aramaic: וְלָא תִסְתַּאֲבוּן וְלָא תִסְתַּאֲבוּן– “Do not become unclean! do not become unclean!”
A more critical approach might make reference to Leviticus Rabba (16:3) where the midrash seems to recount the great lengths to which certain 2nd-3rd century rabbis would go to avoid confronting a leper.[20] However, one must be careful to properly distinguish between halachic (legal) and aggadic (homiletical) midrashim in order to interpret these difficult passages properly. The practice of keeping a calculated distance between a leper, or worse – throwing stones to avoid contagion, had absolutely zero legal precedent or bearing on the Jewish community. Neither do they represent any of the sentiments found in all legal texts past or prior.[21]
In one of the more sympathetic passages that speaks to the mutual love and responsibility each Jew has for each other, the Talmud explains: “He will cry: ‘Impure, impure.’ He must announce his pain to the masses, and the masses will pray for mercy on his behalf.”[22] It is not unfathomable to think that Yeshua felt a similar if not greater compassion when he stretched out his hand to touch the leper.
Footnotes:
[1] A suspected leper is isolated but he is not required to dwell apart from society. Regarding a healed leper, the Mishnah explains that once the metzora has shown himself to the priest, he is still unclean for the duration of his seven-day cleansing process. However, his impurity is not as severe as it was when he was inflicted. Although he no longer conveys impurity by entering a building, he still conveys impurity like a sheretz – the body of a swarming animal, see Lev. 11:29-30. (Mishnah, Negaim 14.2).
[2] William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary, (Nashville, T.N.: Thomas Nelson, 2016), 1231.
[3] See Mishnah, Negaim 1.4; 3.1-2; 11.1. Since the fate of a suspected leper rest solely on the discretion of the priest, there is room for a wide range of scenarios to play out before the kohen’s inspection. For instance, if symptoms of צָרַעַת appear on a newlywed or during a festival, the kohen is not summoned, neither does he declare ‘unclean’ so as not to interfere with the celebration (3.2). Also, since the predominant identifier of צָרַעַת is white hair, the Mishnah says that if the hair is removed before the examination of the kohen the person is clean (1.4-5). The bulk of Talmudic literature treats the matter seriously regarding the Temple’s sanctity. But leprosy is not considered medically contagious.
[4] Leviticus 15:31; Numbers 19:13, 20. Cf. 2 Kings 15:5; 2 Chr. 26:19-21. Also, see 1 Corinthians 3:17.
[5] The entire chapter of Leviticus 15 deals with the kinds of bodily impurities that are contaminated to various degrees, and which may require offerings as part of the person’s purification process. The regulations concerning a leper supersede them all in regard to social restriction and ceremony (Lev. 14).
[6] A man or woman (zavah) with an unnatural emission from the genitals (Lev. 15).
[7] The Torah does not actually spell out the ramifications for an individual that encounters a leper and contracts טומאה. However, it can easily be deduced by a process of exegetical elimination: If a person touches a leper but does not contract leprosy, he becomes unclean; however, he cannot qualify as a leper because the signs צָרַעַת are not on him for the priest to conduct a visual inspection (Lev. 13:3). One might think that the individual would be treated like someone who becomes impure because of a corpse – since leprosy is compared to death (Num. 12:12). However, the Torah eliminates this option by only qualifying ‘whoever touches a human corpse’ for cleansing with the ashes of the Red Heifer (Num. 19:11-12). Perhaps the individual undergoes a seven-day purification rite with offerings similar to a Zav (Lev. 15:13-15). This is impossible because no such procedure exists. The only comparison that can be made is someone who becomes impure by touching a Zav (Compare Lev. 15:5-7 to Lev. 14:46). Although the main discussions in rabbinic literature do not state it plainly, this view is implied throughout their discourses: Ablution followed by sunset. Main texts: Mishnah Tractate Negaim (read chapters 3-8, 13; Talmud, Pesachim 67a; Arachin 15b; Sanhedrin 106b; and Sifra to Parshat Tazria/Metzora.
[8] On ordinary, non-festival days and when preparation for the pilgrim festivals are not a concern.
[9] Rashi to Levititus 13:46; Talmud, Pesachim 67a.
[10] Matthew 9:20; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:43-48.
[11] Multiple implications can be derived from Lev. 14:45-46: 1) Contact with צָרַעַת as a secondary source requires an individual to wash their clothes, and by extension, immerse and await sunset to regain purity, similar to contracting impurity from a Zav. 2) Entering a home containing צָרַעַת of any form has the same affects as entering a house with a corpse. This is why the leper is still restricted from his tent i.e. his home, for seven days of his purification process after he is healed (Lev. 14:8).
[12] A corpse render’s a person unclean for seven days (Num. 19:11-12), but a leper renders someone impure for as long as it takes the individual who made contact to immerse and wash his clothes.
[13] The Jewish custom of cutting kriah is derived from the biblical mourning customs of tearing one’s garment in loss, grief, or humility (Lev. 21:10; cf. Gen. 37:29, 34; 2 Sam. 1:11-12; 2 Kings 2:11-12; Job 1:20 et. al.).
[14] Abraham ibn Ezra to Lev. 13:45; Also see Rashi. Cf. Sifra, Parashat Tazria; Mishnah Negaim 13.7; and Onkelos.
[15] Most theologians and scholars would consider this to be an overreaching argument. The tendency is to regulate ṣāraʻaṯ to a variety of natural skin diseases considered variously contagious: Ring worm, psoriasis, leukoderma, vitiligo, etc. (Buttrick & Arthur 1995, 338). I contend that the basic laws of ṣāraʻaṯ as given in the Bible are already improbable phenomena by scientific standards (Lev. 13:12-13) and were regarded as unnatural by the culture that fostered them. Many interpret Yeshua’ words in John 9:3 as a blanket statement for all natural infirmities. But this doesn’t seem to be Yeshua’ attitude toward ṣāraʻaṯ (Luke 4:27; 17:11-19). By all accounts, Yeshua’ sentiments toward the miraculous condition was consistent with the contemporary view of his day. Since Yeshua is not pretending that ṣāraʻaṯ is a natural disease, we should not try to make it one. When the text is criticized and received with all the cultural peculiarities that come with it, the intended impression the author is trying to make is illuminated.
[16] Acronym for Moses ben Mamon (1138-1204), also known as Maimonides – one of the most prolific and influential Torah scholars of the Middle Ages.
[17] Rambam, Hilchot Tumat Tzara’at 16:10.
[18] Targum Onkelos an early 2nd century, authoritative Jewish translation of the Torah into Aramaic. Authorship is traditionally attributed to Onkelos, a Roman who converted to Judaism (c. 35-120 CE).
[19] Targum Onkelos to Leviticus 13:45-46. Kevin Cathcart, Michael Maher, and M.S.C. Martin McNamara (Collegeville, M.N.: The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., 1995) 26.
[20] “R’ Yochanan and R’ Shimon ben Lakish discussed this. R’ Yochanan said: It is prohibited for one to pass within four cubits to the east of a metzora. R’ Shimon said: even within one hundred cubits. [But they] do not agree… R’ Meir would not eat eggs that came from a metzora’s neighborhood. R’ Ami and R’ Assi would not enter the neighborhood of a metzora. When Reish Lakish would see one of them within the city, he would throw stones at him; he would tell him, ‘Go back to your town; do not contaminate other people!’ For R’ Chiya taught: He shall dwell alone (13:46), [meaning], he should sit in isolation. When R’ Elazar the son of R’ Shimon would see one of them, he would hide from him.” (. Rab. 16:3)
[21] One must also be sensitive to the circumstances behind these accounts and the plight of the Jewish community at the time of this writing: The 2nd-3rd Century CE was a time of great political turmoil and uncertainty after the failure of the Bar Kokhba revolt. Having been less than a century removed from the last period of Jewish autonomy, there was still great uncertainty in matters of impurity because there was no longer a remedy in the absence of the Temple. Apparently, this group of rabbis took to more extreme precautions to avoid more serious contaminants. At any rate, the concerns in question were no longer relevant without the Temple and an officiating class of Priests to inspect and declare a leper’s status. Even still, it is apparent that the sentiments of Reish Lakish (c. 200-c. 275) concern matters of ritual impurity, not medical contagion (ibid.).
[22] Talmud, Chullin 78a.
