Our Location
Next Services
Miriam’s case of leprosy is fascinating on multiple levels: Regarding her affliction and healing, it is God who both strikes and heals her; and there is no mention of her purification process.
The First Case of a Metzorah
Whether ṣāraʻaṯ be a condition of the body, garment, or home, the damning diagnosis is frequently used in combination with the word נֶגַע, i.e., נֶגַע צָרַעַת. The common form of the noun is a derivative of the Piel verb, “to afflict with leprosy;” and seems to indicate the author’s view of its mysterious origin: Ṣāraʻaṯ is a נֶגַע, (1) blow, stroke, (2) plague. As a condition of the plague itself, chapters 13-14 use the noun 28 times in the definitive הַנֶּגַע, to refer to leprosy.[1] In its broader context, the noun appears 67 times in the Torah,[2] with all but six occurrences taking place in Lev. 13-14.[3] Given its use in retributive contexts, it is apparent that נֶגַע צָרַעַת is inflicted, not contracted by happenstance. This is confirmed by God Himself as he addresses Moses concerning leprosy of the home:
כִּ֤י תָבֹ֙אוּ֙ אֶל־אֶ֣רֶץ כְּנַ֔עַן אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֲנִ֛י נֹתֵ֥ן לָכֶ֖ם לַאֲחֻזָּ֑ה
וְנָתַתִּי֙ נֶ֣גַע צָרַ֔עַת בְּבֵ֖ית אֶ֥רֶץ אֲחֻזַּתְכֶֽם׃
“When you enter the land of Canaan that I give you as a possession,
And I inflict an eruptive plague upon a house in the land you possess…”[4]
The probability of ṣāraʻaṯ’s miraculous origin is a topic discussed at great length in Jewish literature of antiquity. According to the rabbis, נֶגַע צָרַעַת was a Divinely imposed skin condition given as a punishment for such sins as slander.[5] The argument itself is well attested in Scripture, as Dr. Francois Viljoen[6] points out: “In the Hebrew Bible, leprosy was usually viewed as God’s punishment for sinful behavior (cf. 2 Kings 5; 2 Chr. 26:16-21; Num. 12:10-15).”[7]
While it is true that impurity is not necessarily sinful,[8] ṣāraʻaṯ is known to be the only impurity used by God for disciplinary purposes apart from death. The first case of a metzora recorded in the Torah is found in the book of Numbers when Miriam challenges the unique dynamic of Moses’ vocation:
The LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, stopped at the entrance of the Tent, and called out, “Aaron and Miriam!” The two of them came forward; and He said, “Hear these My words: When a prophet of the LORD arises among you, I make Myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is trusted throughout My household. With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the LORD. How then did you not shrink from speaking against My servant Moses!” Still incensed with them, the LORD departed. As the cloud withdrew from the Tent, there was Miriam, stricken with snow-white scales [מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג]! (Num. 12:5-10).
In the case of Miriam’s leprosy, God punishes Miriam for instigating criticism toward Moses. The issue surrounding her incitement is rooted in her outlook on Moses’ marriage: “He married a Cushite woman! (v. 1).” Moses’ marital status is a common cause for confusion – It is known that he married Zipporah, the daughter of a Midianite priest (Ex. 2:11-21), but here the text supposes that he took a Cushite for a wife. Interpretations vary regarding the identity of this mysterious woman: Did Moses marry twice or was he a polygamist? Is the Cushite woman none other than Zipporah?[9] The consensus among most medieval commentaries and normative Judaism today is that Zipporah was called אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית as a euphemistic reference to her great beauty.[10] As such, Miriam’s protest concerned Moses’ exercise of his marital duties, not an alleged second marriage.[11]
Consistent with the outline in Lev. 13, Miriam’s symptoms are described in vv. 10-13, and her removal from the Israelite camp in vv. 14-15. Aaron immediately petitions Moses on her behalf with the following entreaty and colorful description of her symptom: “O my lord, account not to us the sin which we committed in our folly. Let her not be as one dead, who emerges from his mother’s womb with half his flesh eaten away (vv. 11-12).”
Miriam’s case is fascinating on multiple levels: Regarding her affliction and healing, it is God who both strikes and heals her. There is no mention of her purification process, and no declaration of טומאה given by Aaron the kohen. Naturally, readmittance to the camp would require a seven-day cleansing process made complete with offerings on the eighth day (Lev. 14:1-32). But Miriam returns to the camp immediately and the people journey forth as soon as she returns (12:15). It is also important to remember that according to the laws of ṣāraʻaṯ, a seven-day period of separation is only prescribed when the condition of a suspected leper is in doubt e.g., Lev. 13:4. However, Miriam’s case is never in question as God justifies her removal from the camp apart from the laws of quarantine by citing her public humiliation.[12] Thus, in the absence of standard protocol, the underlying motif of Miriam’s separation is brought forth: Ṣāraʻaṯ is a condition incurred through sins that exhibit asocial behavior; and the punishment for such sins are the separation from social life.
As the first attested case of ṣāraʻaṯ in the Torah, Miriam’s ordeal serves as the prototype for all future cases. In Deuteronomy, her ordeal is given as the incentive for maintaining the integrity of the priestly rule concerning ṣāraʻaṯ: “In cases of a skin affection [בְּנֶגַע־הַצָּרַעַת] be most careful to do exactly as the Levitical priests instruct you. Take care to do as I have commanded them. Remember what the LORD your God did to Miriam on the journey after you left Egypt (Deut. 24:8-9).”
Here, Moses issues a dire warning with a powerful incentive – Although the priest has no part in the leper’s cure, he is essential to the victim’s cleansing and integration back into the community. It might be tempting for a leper to forgo the lengthy cleansing process after his healing. However, Moses reminds the people that ṣāraʻaṯ is given from a divine source. No one can abuse God’s established hierarchy without consequence. In the same vein, the Jewish Sages discussed the danger and prohibition of hiding symptoms of ṣāraʻaṯ or cutting away affected members.[13] The malady is not simply a bodily disease, but the physical manifestation of a spiritual infirmity. Thus, ṣāraʻaṯ is given as a signal to repent whereby healing comes through prayer.[14]
In his 1985 publication, גבה מעל גבה (Every High Official), Prof. Yair Zakovitch observes a leitmotif in subsequent cases of ṣāraʻaṯ recorded in the Hebrew Bible (see 2 Kings Ch. 5; 2 Chr. 26:16-21). According to his view, the cases of Miriam, Naaman, Gehazi, and Uzziah are all similar in that they share a distinctive punishment that is “visited upon those who fail to recognize their subordination to those with a higher status.”[15] By this litmus, the lesson for each character lies in the elaborate hierarchy over which God reigns supreme i.e., the unique criteria for a prophet like Moses (Num. 12:8); the word of Elisha and the sanctity of the covenant Land (2 Kings 5:11-13, 20); and the divinely ordained privilege of the kohanim to officiate the divine service (2 Chr. 26:16-20). Zakovitch concludes that a healthy society is one that is comprised of individuals who uphold such order.[16]
According to the rabbis, Miriam stands as the eternal model of the wisdom that teaches: “Death and life are in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof (Prov. 18:21 KJV).”[17] Such a privilege is anything but reproachful, as Miriam is considered a great and righteous woman who was adored by the people and contributed mightily to Israel’s merit.[18] The New Testament is replete with admonitions pertinent to her lesson (e.g., James 3:7-10). In the case of the metzora, the words of Yeshua are shown to transcend their original context with far reaching implication: “What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them, but what comes out of their mouth, that is what defiles them (Mat. 15:11).” Even in the absence of the Holy Temple today where the laws of ṣāraʻaṯ are no longer applicable, their implication pertaining to holiness and standards of righteous conduct are still relevant for Jews and Christians. In this vein, the believer should hearken the words of the Apostle who said: “These things happened to them as examples, and were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come (1 Cor. 10:11 NKJ).
Footnotes:
[1] Leviticus 13:3-6, 12-13, 17, 30, 32, 43, 45-46, 49, 50-58; Lev. 14:36-40, 43-44, 48.
[2] 78 times in the entire Hebrew Bible.
[3] The word first appears in Gen. 12:17 where God strikes (וַיְנַגַּ֨ע) Pharaoh with plagues (נְגָעִים) because of the abduction of Abraham’s wife, Sarah. The second occurrence is Ex. 11:1 where God informs Moses that He will inflict one more plague on Egypt (נֶגַע), the death of the firstborn. The four other occurrences pertain to kinds of bodily assault inflicted by one person on another (Deut. 17:8, 21:5) and in reference to the case of a metzora (Deut. 24:8).
[4] Leviticus 14:34.
[5] Talmud Arachin 15b, 16a | The primary cause of צָרַעַת is slander. However, the Sages teach that the affliction is also a punishment for bloodshed, false oaths, sexual immorality, pride, robbery, and selfishness.
[6] Faculty of Theology, North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, South Africa.
[7] Viljoen, Francois P. (2014). Yeshua healing the leper and the Purity Law in the Gospel of Matthew. In die Skriflig , 48 (2), 01-07. Retrieved November 30, 2021, from http://www.scielo.org.za.
[8] The Moody Bible Commentary explains: “Bodily diseases separated the worshiper from the presence of God and the practice of prescribed worship… [a leper] was considered ceremonially unclean, though not necessarily sinful. It would be wrong to conclude that such diseases were indicative of God’s punishment for sin in an individual’s life (Rydelnik et. al. 2014, 196).” – This is true of every impurity that is derived from a natural occurrence. However, the laws of ṣāraʻaṯ are treated differently in the Hebrew Bible, rabbinic commentaries, and the New Testament.
[9] Dr. Elad Filler, “Moses and the Kushite Woman: Classic Interpretations and Philo's Allegory,” at TheTorah.com: A Historical and Contextual Approach, accessed 13 August 2018.
[10] Rashi to Numbers 12:1.
[11] In no place does the Torah mention a second marriage for Moses. In view of the purity laws mentioned in Leviticus 15, it is possible that Moses avoided cohabitation to avoid impurity. As Israel’s unique prophet who spoke to God face to face, he needed to be ready to hear God’s word at any moment. The revelation at Mount Sinai (Ex. 19-20) is the only event where the entire nation received revelation on Moses’ level. Prior to their encounter with God, they had to abstain from sexual relations for three days (Ex. 19:15). Thus, it is not a stretch to believe that Moses may have refrained from marital relations with Zipporah to maintain ritual purity. Prior to the Exodus from Egypt, Moses begets two sons (Ex. 18:2-4). However, after Sinai no children are attributed to him (1 Chr. 23:14-16). The question becomes, of what benefit would a second wife be to Moses? It is better to presume that Miriam attempted to interject into Moses’ private matters in good will for Zipporah, while being ignorant of the unique rule for Moses. So she contests: “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well? (12:2).
[12] Numbers 12:14. Cf. Or HaChaim to ibid.
[13] Mishnah, Negaim 7.5.
[14] See I Kings 8:37-38, also Luke 4:27: “There were many in Israel with leprosy in the time of Elisha the prophet, yet not one of them was cleansed – only Naaman the Syrian.”
Yeshua’ admonition is one that is in alignment with the pervading thought of his day, that ṣāraʻaṯ was indicative of a spiritual malaise. His message in Lk. 4:27 makes the same point as his word concerning Nineveh in Mat. 12:38-42. Nineveh’s repentance was an indictment against the Northern Israelite Kingdom who had been warned, time and again, by Jonah and the prophets to repent but refused to do so. Likewise, Naaman was an influential gentile who renounced idolatry and turned to the true God after his ordeal with leprosy. The substance of Yeshua’ indictment is taken seriously in Judaism and is brought out in Jewish practice. Today, the Scroll of Jonah is read publicly on Yom Kippur as a testimony to the power of repentance and Israel’s obligation to do so.
[15] Yair Zakovitch, גבה מעל גבה – A Literary Analysis of 2 Kings 5 (Tel Aviv, Israel: עם עובד, c 1985), 23. Translation by Rachel Havrelock, River Jordan: The Mythology of a Dividing Line (Ch cago, I.L.: University of Chicago Press, 2011), 183.
[16] Ibid.
[17] See Ramban, Nachmanides (1194 – c. 1270) to Deut. 24:9.
[18] Miriam was a prophetess and leader of the nation (Ex. 15:20-27). The people’s adoration for her is evident in the fact that the camp did not march without her (Num. 12:15). Upon her death, the miraculous waters of the rock were stopped up, a testimony to her merit: “From here we see that the entire forty years that the Israelites spent in the wilderness they had the Well through the merit of Miriam (Talmud, Taanit 9a; cf. Moed Katan 28a).
