Tzaraas Rulings

HaGaon Rav Henoch Leibowitz points out that a person may be aware of and believe certain concepts. However, intellectual knowledge is not the same as internalizing the idea and acting upon it. Presumably, this couple truly always believed that Hashem provides sustenance to each and every human being. However, it wasn’t until they saw a complete disconnect between their beliefs and actions that they internalized this message. Rav Yisrael Salanter used to say that the longest distance in the world is the distance between the mind and the heart.

Truthfully, this would be a nice dvar Torah on Parshas Tazria. But what does it have to do with the Daf? One connection may be that the Gemara says in Yoma 38b that one cannot take away even a hair’s breadth of what is destined for his friend. Ben Azzai uttered this statement in reference to the attempted firing of the Garmu and Avitinus families from their respective positions in the Beis Hamikdash. However, the Sages were forced to hire them back at double their original salaries. Rashi (38a) comments that one should not worry that a competitor will take away his business because whatever Hashem decrees one should earn is guaranteed his. However, there is another connection.

Rav says (Yoma 42a) that the shechita of the Para Adumah must be performed by a kohen. The Gemara points out that typically the shechita of sacrifices do not need to be performed by a kohen. Rav explains that the shechita of the Para Adumah is not really akin to an Avoda, the technical name used to describe service in the Beis Hamikdash. Rather, just as it is a scriptural decree that questions of tzaraas must be decided by a kohen and not a Torah scholar who is a Yisrael, so, too, it is a scriptural decree that the shechita of the Para Adumah must be performed by a kohen. Although shechita of the Para Adumah may look like an Avoda, in truth it is not. Based on this, the Chazon Ish comments that just as a kohen when he is deciding matters of tzaraas does not need to wear his special priestly garments, so, too, the kohen when he shechts the Para Adumah does not need to wear his priestly garments.

The Chazon Ish assumed as a given that the kohen performing a tzaraas inspection does not need to wear bigdei kehuna. However, the Tiferes Yaakov (on Chomer B’kodesh 4:8) disagrees. When the Torah says that “the kohen” must inspect the ailment, it means while wearing his bigdei kehuna. (Indeed, the Gemara makes a similar exposition. Yoma 43a.)

However, a proof against the Tiferes Yaakov may be brought from the Medrash Tanchuma cited above. How was the kohen’s wife able to rule on tzaraas – she certainly didn’t have any bigdei kehuna! It must be that bigdei kehuna is not required to pasken on tzaraas. Indeed, this is how the Kol Torah understands the Medrash. The wife of the kohen was actually ruling on tzaraas questions. Although typically priestly duties must be performed by male kohanim, this must be an exception. We do find a precedent for this. A wife of a kohen may accept some of the matnos kehuna.

However, the Pardes Yosef (Vayikra 14:9) disagrees. All agree that even a kohen who is not proficient in the laws of tzaraas, may rule on negaim provided that he brings an expert with him, even if that expert is a Yisrael. So, too, suggests the Pardes Yosef, perhaps the poor kohen was only training his wife to be the expert. She would be able to advise any male kohen, such as her son, for example, what the halacha should be. However, the actual pronouncement must be made based on a scriptural decree by a male kohen.

In any event, as a matter of what will hopefully soon be practical halacha, the above discussion is irrelevant. The Rambam rules that the shechita of the Para Adumah may be performed by a non-kohen, whether male or female.