Tazria/Metzora: Spot on (Tzar'at)
The affliction known in the Bible as tzara’at has variously been translated as “leprosy,” “Hanson’s disease,” “epilepsy,” “mold,” or mere “skin discoloration.” Regardless of whatever exact malady that term refers to, it is clear from the Bible that a person who had such a spot on their skin could be declared ritually impure by a Kohen and would need to undergo a certain purification process in order to be rehabilitated. The tractate of the Mishnah which deals with the laws of tzara’at is called Negaim, a term which in some ways seems to be synonymous with the word tzara’at itself. This essay begins by exploring the words tzara’at and nega (the singular form of Negaim) to find the nuanced differences between those two terms. Afterwards, we will focus on the two nouns used in Biblical Hebrew to refer to the “leper” — tzarua and metzora — and consider whether those expressions are true synonyms or convey slightly different ideas.
The noun tzara’at and various inflections of that noun appear thirty-five times in the Bible. As you can imagine, the bulk of those instances are in the Book of Leviticus which details all the laws governing the ritual impurity and purification associated with tzara’at (Lev. 13–14). That word also appears one more time in the Pentateuch, when warning that one may not evade the repercussions of having tzara’at by simply cutting off the offending spot (Deut. 24:8). The term tzara’at also appears three times in reference to the Aramean general Na’aman whose tzara’at was miraculous healed on the advice of the prophet Elisha (II Kgs. 5:3; 5:6–7; 5:27) and one more time when Uzziah the King of Judah illegally offered ketoret and was punished with a bright spot of tzara’at shining on his forehead (II Chron. 26:19).
Later on, we will discuss the words tzarua and metzora which refer to a person afflicted with tzara’at. But at this point, it is important to know that all three of those terms derive from the three-letter root TZADI-REISH-AYIN. Gesenius and other philologists argue that this Hebrew root is related to the Arabic sara'a which refers to "being thrown down to the ground" (hence the possible connection to epilepsy). As we will below, it seems that this literal meaning of the term refers to Hashem “throwing down” a person and “humbling” by Divinely afflicting him with tzara’at.
It is also important to note that there are two proper names in the Bible that seem to be derived from this root as well: A city named Zorah (pronounced Tzarah) located in the tribal territory of Dan is mentioned 11 times in the Bible, and the mother of Jeroboam ben Nabat was named Zeruah, pronounced Tzeruah (I Kgs. 11:26).
Indeed, Alfred Jones in his book The Proper Names of the Old Testament Scriptures Expounded and Illustrated (London, 1856), p. 376 notes that the name of Jeroboam’s mother is etymologically-related to tzara’at, yet he does not explain why she bore such an odd name. But Midrash Tadshe (printed in Otzar Midrashim, p. 481) explains that her name alludes to the fact that her son brought a "spirit of tzara'at" upon the nation and swayed their hearts away from Hashem. As Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Ferber of London (1879–1966) explains this Midrash, Jeroboam introduced an infectious zeitgeist that caused a rebellious spirit to be “in the air” in a way that it induced the people of his generation to sin alongside him. Rabbi Moshe David Valle (Kise Nachon to I Kgs. 11:26) speculates that perhaps Zeruah was literally a leperess, and she passed on her ritual impurity to her son Jeroboam who later became the King of Israel (Northern Kingdom) and led the Jews astray with his Golden Calves. Interestingly, pseudo-Rashi (to II Chron. 4:17) writes that Jeroboam’s mother was called Zeruah because she was a widow and when her husband died, he spread ritual impurity to all those within his tent, just like a leper is a conduit of ritual impurity.
The Bible foretells that when the Jews will enter the Holy Land to conquer it, Hashem will send the tzirah against its Canaanite inhabitants (Ex. 23:28, Deut. 7:20, Josh. 24:12). That term is usually translated as “wasp/hornet,” but Ibn Ezra (to Ex. 23:28, Deut. 7:20) explains that it refers to a sort of disease or malady, and is etymologically related to tzara’at. In fact, Ibn Ezra (Lev. 13:19) conversely writes that the word tzara’at itself actually just means “disease/malady” in a general sense. Similarly, Ibn Janach in his Sefer HaShorashim traces both tzara'at and tzirah to the triliteral root TZADI-REISH-AYIN, and he defines tzirah as referring to "destruction" and "pestilence." On the other hand, Menachem Ibn Saruk lists tzara'at and tzirah as two different categories within the same triliteral root, without entertaining any thematic or semantic connection between them. Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim in Yeriot Shlomo surmises that the two are related because just as the sting of a hornet is venomous and could prove lethal, so could tzara'at be poisonous and detrimental to one's health.
Rabbi Yehuda Aryeh of Carpentras (in Ohalei Yehudah) explains the word tzirah as a fusion of the words/roots tzar ("enemy") and ra ("bad"), as swarms of wasps or bees can be seen as an especially formidable enemies because they cannot be fought with swords and spears. Using a similar methodology, Rabbi Moshe David Valle (Kise Nachon to I Kgs. 11:26) parses the word tzara’at as a portmanteau of eit (“time”) and tzar (“constriction”).
Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Lev. 13:2) sees the root TZADI-REISH-AYIN as related to the roots ZAYIN-REISH-AYIN (zorea, “sowing/planting”) and ZAYIN-REISH-HEY (zoreh, “winnowing/throwing”). This contention is based on the phonetic interchangeability of the letters TZADI and ZAYIN, as well as AYIN and HEY. The way he explains it, when one plants something and it grows, this growth is an expression of the deeply-rooted seed that had hitherto been hidden from plain sight and has now burst forth outwardly. Similarly, tzara’at that appears as a spot on the surface of one’s skin is an outward representation of something rooted deeper in oneself. Meaning, when a person’s inner self has become rotten in sin, Hashem causes spots of tzara’at to appear on his outside as a way of manifesting that inner rot in a way that is visible to all and sundry.
Mr. Moshe Ossi in Al Katzeh HaLashon suggests that the triliteral root TZADI-REISH-AYIN relates to the triliteral SIN-REISH-AYIN (based on the interchangeability of TZADI and SIN). That latter root appears only three times in the Bible: Two of those instances are in the word sarua (Lev. 22:23, 21:18) used in reference to a sort of blemish that disqualified a Kohen from functioning in the Temple and an animal from being brought as a sacrifice. That blemish refers to a sort of bodily deformity by which some limbs are "stretched out" or "excessively extended." The third instance is in the word mei’histarea, which occurs when Isaiah metaphorically says, “For the bed is too short to stretch oneself [mei’histarea] on it” (Isa. 28:20). That verse suggests discomfort due to constraints, as if there is not enough room to expand because of certain limitations. Essentially, this rare root SIN-REISH-AYIN is associated with “expansion,” which Mr. Ossi understands as related to tzar’at since one of the hallmarks of tzara’at is its tendency to spread and expand across the skin.
Rabbi Avi Kobernick offers another two ways of interpreting the triliteral root TZADI-REISH-AYIN by viewing it as a metathesization of other roots that use those same three letters in a different order. First, he contrasts TZADI-REISH-AYIN with AYIN-TZADI-REISH (aritz/ne’eratz), which means “powerful,” “awesome,” “esteemed,” but also “broken” and “subdued” (ta’arotz). In doing so, Rabbi Kobernick reconciles the seemingly-contradictory meanings of AYIN-TZADI-REISH by explaining that if one cowardly views one’s enemies as “powerful/awesome/esteemed,” then automatically one feels “broken/subdued” when comparing oneself to them. Either way, he explains that tzara’at represents the opposite of AYIN-TZADI-REISH because tzara’at denotes a sickness, which inevitably refers to bodily weakness.
Alternatively, Rabbi Kobernick connects TZADI-REISH-AYIN with TZADI-AYIN-REISH (tza’ar, “pain”), explaining that just as tzara’at is something that a leper has to suffer and endure, so does all pain refer to the sort of burden that is imposed on a person that he has to deal with. This connection may run deeper, as in the Halachic Midrash Torat Kohanim (to Lev. 13:2), the rabbis reveal that one suffering from tzara'at is "pained" (tza'ar) by it, and even those who see the one suffering from tzara'at are also pained by it. The rabbis’ use of the word tza’ar in this context may hint to their understanding that the word tzara’at itself could also etymologically be linked to tza’ar.
The word nega in the sense of a spot of tzara’at derives from either the triliteral root NUN-GIMMEL-AYIN (per Ibn Janach and Radak) or the biliteral root GIMMEL-AYIN (per Ibn Saruk). The root (NUN)-GIMMEL-AYIN has a whole bevy of meanings, chiefly “touching/contacting” (nogea), “approaching/reaching” (haga’ah), and “hitting/smiting” (naga). Rabbi Shlomo Pappenheim sees the core meaning of this root as "touching/contacting," which he sees as essentially the meeting point of two entities. As a corollary of that, he explains that “approaching/reaching” denotes the act of bringing closer such contact, and “hitting/smiting” denotes the sort of negative contact whereby one encounters adversity and is struck by it. Being physically hit by another person is just one example of these sorts of negative points of contact, but another one is being afflicted by an outside force like a disease or other malady. It is in that sense that the word nega (“leprosy”) refers to a spot of tzara’at. That spot represents the “meeting point” between the leper and the leprous malady that Hashem has wrought upon him.
Indeed, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch (to Lev. 13:2) sees this Divine element as essential to the quiddity of tzara’at/negaim, noting that a leprous disease that is pathological in nature and not clearly the result of a Divine affliction is excluded from the very definition of a nega.
Similarly, Rabbi Hirsch (to Gen. 20:5) sees the root NUN-GIMMEL-AYIN as related to its phonetic cognate NUN-GIMMEL-CHET (via the phonetic interchangeability of the letters AYIN and CHET). Both roots refer to the impact of contact between two parties, with the latter root producing the word negichah (“goring”) used to imply a strong impact or crash, while the former root gives way to negiah that can imply even a light touch. In the case of negaim, he understands that the nega is the nexus between a person and a Divine message intended to reproach him and rouse him to repent his sins. [For more about negichah, see “The Shiloach Waters” (July 2023).]
The word oneg (“enjoyment”) has the same letters as the word nega, but in a different order. A famous Hassidic adage (quoted in the name of many different rabbis) states that the difference between nega (NUN-GIMMEL-AYIN) and oneg (AYIN-NUN-GIMMEL) is where you put the AYIN. Meaning, affliction and enjoyment are subjective, relative terms that depend on how one experiencing something looks at it with his ayin (“eye”) — whether it’s positive (enjoyable) or negative (sufferable).
In the teachings of the Arizal (Shaar HaMitzvot, Tazria), a clear distinction is made between the terms tzara’at and nega, showing that these are not simply interchangeable synonyms, but rather represent two interconnected yet fundamentally different spiritual phenomena. According to this view, tzara’at refers to the actual presence of a “spirit of impurity,” which clings to a person due to some spiritual defect (i.e., sin). This impurity is not merely symbolic, but a real spiritual contamination that manifests in the physical affliction described in the Torah. In contrast, the term nega is associated not with impurity itself, but with a holy, Divine form of judgment. This force is actually pure and comes from the side of holiness, serving as a means to reveal and ultimately expel the tzara’at. That is, while tzara’at is the impurity that has taken hold of the sinner,nega is the afflictive spiritual blow that brings this impurity to the surface, forcing it to become visible so that it can be addressed and removed.
Because of this dynamic, the Torah sometimes uses the phrase nega tzara’at (Lev. 13:2-3; 13:9; 13:20; 13:25; 13:27; 13:47; 13:49; 13:59; 14:32; 14:34) which uses both terms in order to denote both the manifestation of the impurity (tzara’at) and the divine mechanism that reveals and expels it (nega). Of course, in other places, one term may appear without the other, depending on which aspect of leprosy is being emphasized: the spiritual affliction itself, or the holy force that brings it to light as a means of encouraging repentance. Thus, the Arizal portrays nega and tzara’at not as synonyms, but as two stages in a profound spiritual process — first the concealment that allows impurity to fester and rot within, and then the Divine judgment that brings it forth for healing.
***
As mentioned above, the terms tzarua and metzora are declensions of the triliteral root TZADI-REISH-AYIN which gives us the word tzara’at. Both tzarua and metzora refer to a person stricken by tzara’at, with tzarua appearing five times in the Bible (Lev. 5:2; 13:44–45; 14:3, Num. 5:2) and metzora appearing fifteen times. For example, when stating that a leper is forbidden from eating terumah (Lev. 22:4) or that a leper must be sent out of the camp (Num. 5:2), the Torah uses the term tzarua. But in other cases, the terminology used to denote a leper is metzora: That verbiage is used, for example, when introducing the laws detailing a leper’s purification process (Lev. 14:2), when stating that Na’aman was a leper (II Kgs. 5:1), when stating that Gehazi became a leper (II Kgs 5:27), and when stating that Uzziah was a leper (II Kgs. 15:5, II Chron. 26:21–23). A feminine form of metzorah — metzora’at — is used when stating that Moses’ hand became leperous (Ex. 4:6) and when stating that Miriam became a leper (Num. 12:10). Why does the Bible sometimes use the term tzarua and sometimes metzora?
The Peirush HaRokeach (to Lev. 13:45), as understood by the editors of Tosafot HaShaleim, writes that the word metzora means essentially the same thing as tzarua, except for the addition of an initial MEM (and the reordering of the REISH and VAV). That commentary explains that this extra MEM alludes to the letter’s gematria in the number "forty," which hints to the fortieth day from Moses' ascent to Mount Sinai when the Jews sinned with the Golden Calf. As the rabbis teach us, one of the punishments given to those who participated in the Golden Calf orgy was that they became lepers (Vayikra Rabbah §17:3), and so the use of the term metzora as opposed to tzarua hints to the sinful origins of the leper’s tzara’at. The problem with this exegetical homily is that it fails to account for why the Bible uses the word tzarua in some contexts and metzora in others.
But the basic idea behind this lesson resonates with what Chazal teach that idolatry (not unlike what the Jews did with the Golden Calf) is one of many sins for which tzara'at might come as a punishment. Other sins that can cause this Divine malady include sexual misdeeds, murder, desecrating Hashem's name, blasphemy, stealing, misusing public property, haughtiness, slander (lashon hara), stinginess, testifying falsely, a judge who perverts the law, swearing in vain, entering another's domain, thinking bad thoughts, and causing strife amongst brothers (Vayikra Rabbah there, Erachin 15b, Zohar Balak 206a, and Tanchuma Metzora §4).
Rabbi Shlomo Tzvi Shick (1842–1916) in his work Torah Shleimah (Metzora §1) writes in the name of Rabbi Menachem Deutsch (1819–1904) that the fact that the Torah uses the term metzora instead of tzarua is actually what led the rabbis (Erachin 15b) to exegetically expounding on the word metzora as a portmanteau of motzi shem ra (“defamation”).
Rabbi Eliezer Perlmutter (1807–1887) in Even Moshe offers another resolution to the question of the synonymity between tzarua and metzora. He answers that tzarua refers exclusively to a leper whilst he still actively afflicted with tzara'at, while metzora can even refer to a leper who has technically been healed of the physical malady, as long as he had not yet finished the purification process required by the Torah. The way Rabbi Perlmutter explains it, so long as the leper has not yet undergone the required purification process, he still remains on the cusp of being afflicted by tzara'at again, so one noun cognate of the word tzara'at — metzora — can still apply to him, even if the other term (tzarua) cannot.
Rabbi Shmuel David Luzzatto (1800–1865), also known as a Shadal, comes up with another interesting way of differentiating between tzarua and metzora, but it is hard to substantiate. Shadal (to Lev. 13:5) writes that the difference between these two terms is that tzarua refers to a person who has only one nega, while metzora refers to a p
