The physical ailment of having skin turn white has nothing to do with medicine or bodily health or the disease called “leprosy.” It is instead described as a physical manifestation of a spiritual ailment, reflecting a person’s failings.
But what causes this ailment, tzaraas?
The common interpretation is that tzaraas comes from damaging others, including gossip. This is well supported in the text as well, by the only two documented cases of tzaraas: Moses and Miriam.
In Moses’ case, G-d tells him at the burning bush to go tell the people that G-d has heard their cries, and Moses will act as G-d’s emissary to free them from slavery to Pharaoh. Moses is skeptical:
And Moses answered and said: ‘But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice; … And the LORD said furthermore unto him: ‘Put now thy hand into thy bosom.’ And he put his hand into his bosom; and when he took it out, behold, his hand was tzaraas. (Exodus 4: 1, 6)
G-d responds to Moses’ words by giving him a “taste” of the punishment one receives for harming someone else by saying negative things about them. Moses contracts tzaraas.
The other example of receiving tzaraas is when Miriam and Aaron speak about Moses:
Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had taken: “He took a Cushite woman!” They said, “Has G-d spoken only through Moses? Has [G-d] not spoken through us as well?”
G-d is angered, and Miriam is plagued with tzaraas. This, too, surely supports the idea that negative speech is the cause of this ailment, of tzaraas, right?
But what if this is too simple, mistaking symptoms for the underlying disease?
What the stories of Moses at the bush and Miriam’s criticisms all have in common is not negative speech itself, but the mindset that led to that speech: are they not both about insecurity and lack of faith in themselves?
Was Moses’ statement that the people would not believe him actually a statement about himself and even about G-d’s veracity? Yes, “they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice.” is negative speech about the people. But is it not also negative speech about Moses’ view of his own capabilities and limitations! Wasn’t Moses punished for not having confidence in himself?!
Is Miriam’s negative speech similarly born from insecurity about herself?! She criticizes her brother for marrying an outsider (which is normal, if not admirable, xenophobia), and then she says, “Has the LORD spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” Is Miriam’s also the expression of insecurity?
If tzaraas is caused by lack of confidence, then does it turn the classic explanation on its head? Each of the people connected to this ailment acted from feelings of comparative inadequacy. A secure and confident person is able to comprehend and appreciate his or her own worth without needing to compare to other people. A bully acts from a core fear, a need to dominate others. But a person who is truly large feels no need to make others small.
Might this suggest that the solution for tzaraas is not humility, but instead a discovering inner confidence?
Why Stone Buildings?
A part of the relevant commandments is the statement that stone buildings can also contract tzaraas. Why would a building, as opposed to a person, contract tzaraas?
Might the answer be found in the mindset of a person who lives in a grand stone home, one that is built to last through the ages? Such a home can be a place of love, of security and growth. But it can alternatively act as a closed fortress, a defensive wall behind which a person shields themselves from confronting their fears and insecurities.
Might buildings be connected to tzaraas because they can be the cause of the mental confusion of their inhabitants? Might it be similar to insecure middle-aged men who need shiny cars and young women in order to avoid the reality of aging, of a life in its final laps? These props are not used by people who are comfortable in their own skins.
Does this new understanding turn the ailment of tzaraas on its head? If a person is put in isolation to consider what they have done wrong, then should they should take that time to learn to appreciate themselves and their own, unique value to G-d?
After all, when tzaraas is diagnosed, it is called a nega, a “touch.” So receiving tzaraas is, in a way a communication by G-d, being singled out with the opportunity to soul-search and improve. Isn’t being touched with tzaraas kind of like how parents push their promising children more – because we have higher expectations?
Sagur?
A person who has tzaraas is shut in (sagur). This word is found to describe Adam’s side being “closed off” after surgery, and by Lot and the Angels shutting (sagur) the door between the safe home and the dangerous crowd.
Does this word really mean “to create an enduring separation?” and to secondarily protect a would-be victim?
If so, does shutting away someone with tzaraas serve the double function of separating for healing as well as removing a threat to others?
Might the examples of Adam and Lot inspire this commandment later in the Torah?