Parshas Tazria
1. At the close of the parsha, the Torah speaks of a garment in which there was a nega (a plague-mark), and which was quarantined for seven days; and when on the seventh day it was seen that the nega had not grown larger, the garment was washed and quarantined again for seven days. The verse then says: "והבגד גו' אשר תכבס וסר מהם הנגע, וכבס שנית וטהר" ("And the garment ... which you shall wash, and the nega has departed from them, shall be washed a second time, and it shall be clean") — meaning that if, after the second quarantine, one sees that through the earlier washing the nega was removed from it, the garment must be washed a second time, and then it is tahor (clean).
Rashi comments on the words "וכבס שנית" ("shall be washed a second time") and explains: "לשון טבילה" ("an expression of immersion") — that "shall be washed a second time" means (not that the garment should be laundered once again, but) that it should be immersed. And Rashi brings a proof for this from the Targum: "תרגום של כבוסין שבפרשה זו לשון ליבון ויתחוור, חוץ מזה שאינו ללבון אלא לטבול, לכך תרגומו ויצטבע" ("The Targum of all the 'washings' in this parsha is an expression of laundering — v'yischavar — except for this one, which is not for laundering but for immersion; therefore its Targum is v'yitztava"). Since everywhere in this parsha1 the Targum renders the word "kibus" (washing) as "v'yischavar," which means laundering (washing clean), whereas the word "וכבס" ("shall be washed") (a second time) of our verse he renders "v'yitztava," this is a proof that "shall be washed" here does not mean laundering, but immersion. And Rashi adds: "וכן כל כבוסי בגדים שהן לטבילה מתורגמין ויצטבע" ("And likewise, all washings of garments that are for immersion are rendered v'yitztava")2 — that in every place3 where the verse uses the expression of kibus regarding garments, and its meaning is (not laundering, but) immersion4, the Targum renders it with the expression "v'yitztava."
2. From the fact that Rashi does not say briefly "as the Targum renders it, v'yitztava," but writes at great length, "The Targum of all the washings, etc., and likewise all washings of garments, etc.," it is evident that Rashi wants to make clear that by "v'yitztava" the Targum means immersion and not laundering. And for this Rashi brings a twofold proof: a) that "v'yitztava" does not mean laundering, for laundering he renders "v'yischavar," not "v'yitztava"; b) that "v'yitztava" means immersion, for wherever the expression kibus appears regarding garments and means immersion, its Targum is "v'yitztava."
This needs to be understood:
a) Why does Rashi need both proofs? Seemingly, from the very fact that the Targum here renders the word "shall be washed" differently from the way he renders kibus meaning laundering, it is already clear that the "shall be washed" of our verse does not mean laundering — and consequently it is already understood that it means immersion (for "kibus" carries no more than these two meanings). And all the more so, the second proof alone would suffice, since we find explicitly that "v'yitztava" is the Targum for immersion. Why, then, does Rashi need to resort to both proofs?
b) In order to know that "v'yitztava" means immersion, it surely does not matter with which expression the immersion appears in the verse — whether with the expression kibus or with another expression. Rashi should therefore have written briefly: "And likewise every immersion of garments is rendered v'yitztava." Why does Rashi need to write "and likewise all washings of garments that are for immersion," [specifying] that the Targum v'yitztava is given for the expression kibus which speaks of the immersion of garments?
The explanation of this is as follows:
From the fact that the Targum writes the expression "v'yitztava" where immersion is being discussed, there is no proof that "v'yitztava" means only immersion and not laundering, for one could say that "v'yitztava" is a general expression (just like the expression kibus in the Torah) which carries both meanings: both laundering and immersion. Therefore Rashi must resort to his first proof, "The Targum of all the washings in this parsha is an expression of laundering, v'yischavar, except for this one, etc." — that from the fact that the Targum here departs from the expression he uses in this parsha for kibus meaning laundering, it is evident that here he indeed means something else.
But this proof, too, is not sufficient, because it is possible that his change is for the sake of elegance of style — as we find in several places that when the same matter is mentioned several times in succession, the wording is varied for the sake of elegance of style.
Therefore Rashi adds, "And likewise all washings of garments that are for immersion are rendered v'yitztava" — that the Targum uses the expression v'yitztava every time (not merely for immersion in general, but) to explain the word kibus when it speaks of garments. Now, since in our verse the Targum explains the word "shall be washed," which speaks of a garment, with the word "v'yitztava," there is no room to say that his change of wording from "v'yischavar" (which he uses in this parsha for laundering) to "v'yitztava" is merely for the sake of elegance of style — for one could then think that the reason for the change is that here he means immersion (and obviously, for the sake of elegance of style one does not write an expression that gives room for error). It follows necessarily, then, that by v'yitztava he indeed means immersion.
3. Thus far regarding Rashi's proof that the Targum, with its rendering "v'yitztava," means immersion. However, it is not understood:
a) Since the verse says "shall be washed a second time" — that the garment should be washed a second time — there is seemingly no room to say that "shall be washed" here should mean immersion. The first time the garment was washed [laundered]; since washing and immersing are two separate things, it seemingly does not fit to use the expression "a second time" for the later immersion merely because it too is called by the same term (kibus) as the earlier laundering. And since the verse says "shall be washed a second time," one must — according to the plain meaning — interpret that the second washing also means laundering. Why, then, does Rashi explain "shall be washed — an expression of immersion"?
The question is even stronger: From the very fact that Rashi needs to resort to a proof from the Targum for his explanation that "shall be washed" here is an expression of immersion, it is clear that Rashi himself regards this explanation as not a smooth one, and that according to the plain sense it would be better to interpret the "shall be washed" of our verse as an expression of laundering.
[And obviously one cannot say that Rashi needs to resort to a proof from the Targum merely to show that kibus can also mean immersion — for if so, Rashi should have explained already at the very first place where the meaning of kibus is immersion that it is an expression of immersion, and brought there the proof from the Targum v'yitztava.]
So why indeed does Rashi explain that "shall be washed" here means immersion? Rashi is, after all, not obligated to explain as the Targum does!
b) Rashi comments on the words "shall be washed a second time." Seemingly, Rashi explains only the word "shall be washed" — why does he also quote the word "a second time," which he does not explain?
4. At first glance, one could answer both questions, one by means of the other: Since the verse says "shall be washed a second time" — that the garment should be laundered a second time — this means that it has already been laundered, and the garment is clean. What, then, is the purpose of laundering it again, since according to the plain meaning laundering is relevant where there is a stain and the like, whereas immersion is a law of purity, as already learned earlier? Therefore Rashi explains that "shall be washed a second time" means not laundering, but immersion*.
[The Ibn Ezra explains here that "shall be washed" means laundering. And the question — what is the purpose of laundering the garment a second time when it has already been laundered once and is clean — he resolves by saying: "מצוה לכבסו פעמים" ("It is a mitzvah to wash it twice"), meaning that it is a "mitzvah" for which we do not know a reason. Rashi, however, does not want, according to the plain meaning, to accept that this is a Scriptural decree, and he therefore explains that "shall be washed" means immersion.]
And this is why Rashi also quotes the word "a second time," although he does not explain it — because this word compels his explanation of "shall be washed."
In truth, however, one cannot explain it this way, because the proof that "shall be washed" does not mean laundering the garment once again is not from the word "a second time," but from what is stated explicitly earlier in the verse, "והבגד גו' אשר תכבס וסר מהם הנגע" ("and the garment ... which you shall wash, and the nega has departed from them") — that the garment has already been laundered and the nega has gone from it (and as Rashi adds: "סר ממנו הנגע לגמרי" — "the nega departed from it entirely"). So even if Rashi had not quoted the word "a second time" that follows "shall be washed," one would already understand the difficulty in explaining "shall be washed" as an expression of laundering. Rashi, then, need not derive the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of immersion" from the following word "a second time," when the explanation is already compelled by the preceding words.
5. It has already been discussed many times that when Rashi comments on several words although he explains only some of them, this can be in one of two ways: either the quoted words are a proof and compelling basis for his explanation; or, on the contrary, the words pose a difficulty for his explanation, and Rashi quotes them in order to make clear that nevertheless he explains in accordance with his interpretation.
Accordingly, one could say that the reason Rashi also quotes the word "a second time" is (not because this word is a proof for his explanation, but on the contrary) because from the wording "shall be washed a second time" it seemingly appears that the second washing means laundering, just like the first. And Rashi comments on "shall be washed a second time" in order to make clear that although from this wording it appears that "shall be washed" is an expression of laundering, nevertheless I explain it as an expression of immersion, because it is difficult to say that the Torah would command laundering a garment after "the nega has departed from them."
6. According to this, however, a difficulty remains: According to the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of laundering," it is merely the reason for the law that is not understood — and there are, after all, very many laws, especially in the section of nega'im, whose reason we do not know. In contrast, according to the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of immersion," the difficulty is that the word "a second time" seemingly makes no sense. So how could Rashi adopt an explanation that is contrary to the plain meaning of the verse's wording merely because we have no explanation as to why one should need to launder a clean garment a second time?
The question is even stronger: In an earlier verse5 it says that if during the seven days of the second quarantine the nega has become dim, one must tear out the place of the nega and burn it. This implies that by merely tearing out the place of the nega, the remaining part of the garment is already tahor6. The question then arises: If, when the washing did not remove the nega and it merely became dim, the (remaining part of the) garment is tahor, then all the more so when "the nega has departed from them" — and as Rashi further emphasizes, "entirely" — the garment should certainly be immediately tahor. Why, then, does the verse command "shall be washed a second time"?
And this question applies specifically according to the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of immersion." According to the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of laundering," there is no greater stringency in the case of "the nega has departed from them" than in the case of "the nega has dimmed," because laundering is required only for the part of the garment "את אשר בו הנגע" ("that in which the nega is")7. Consequently, it turns out that the garment as a whole requires no action and is tahor in both cases, and the place of the nega in the case of "dimmed" is indeed treated more severely than in the case of "departed": when the nega has (only) become dim, the place of the nega must be torn out and burned, whereas when "the nega has departed from them," that spot need only be laundered8. Whereas according to the explanation "shall be washed — an expression of immersion," meaning that the entire garment is to be immersed9 (for immersion does not fit for part of an object10), it turns out that "the nega has departed from them" is more severe than "the nega has dimmed."
Now, since the law of "shall be washed a second time" is not understood according to either explanation
[On the contrary: the question on the explanation "an expression of immersion" is much stronger than the question on the explanation "an expression of laundering." For the question of what purpose there is in laundering a clean garment is merely a matter that calls for an explanation; but the question of why "departed" should be more severe than "dimmed" is a matter contrary to reason]
and from the wording "shall be washed a second time" it is evident that the second washing is exactly like the first — Rashi should then have explained that "shall be washed" means laundering?
In truth, however, Rashi's compelling basis is indeed from the wording "shall be washed a second time" — and by also quoting the word "a second time," Rashi intends to bring a proof for his explanation — as will be explained below.
7. The reason for washing the garment after "the nega has departed from them" can be explained in two ways:
a) In the washing and cleansing of the garment in which there is a nega, there are specific laws. And only when the cleansing is done in accordance with the prescribed laws does the Torah say that the nega has gone from the garment; but when it is cleansed in a different manner, not in accordance with the laws of the Torah — even though to human eyes no nega is seen — then, as far as the laws of the Torah concerning the impurity of nega'im are concerned, the nega is still present.
Therefore, in our case: since "the nega has departed from them" came about through a washing that was done for the purpose of quarantining the nega (in order to see what would happen with it seven days later11) and not in order to purify it, the nega (according to the laws of the Torah) still remains. The garment therefore requires a second washing — one whose purpose is to purify it, because only through such a washing does the Torah say that the nega has gone from the garment. — An example of this from the impurity of nega'im itself: their impurity and purity depend on the kohen saying explicitly, "Tahor," "Tamei"12.
(And this can also be read into the wording of the verse: "וכבס שנית וטהר" ("shall be washed a second time, and it shall be clean") — that "and it shall be clean" relates (not only to the garment, that through the washing it becomes clean, but also) to "shall be washed," that the washing comes for the purpose of purifying. The verse itself, that is, explains what the second washing accomplishes beyond the first — that its purpose is "and it shall be clean"13.)
b) Since the spot where the nega appeared is part of the garment, the impurity spread throughout the entire garment. Therefore, even when "the nega has departed from them" according to the Torah, the garment must be washed in order to purify it from the impurity that spread within it.
And the reason that in the case of "the nega has dimmed" the garment need not be washed a second time is because when "the nega has dimmed," the place of the nega is torn out of the garment, and the kohen has not yet said "tamei," and from then on the place of the nega has no connection with the garment as a whole.
8. The practical difference between these two approaches is:
According to the first approach — that "shall be washed" is in order to remove the nega from the garment — one can explain14 that "shall be washed" means laundering. For just as a nega that we see before our eyes is removed through laundering, so too the "cleansing" and "removing" of a nega that we do not see before our eyes is done through laundering.
According to the second approach, however — that "shall be washed" is in order to purify the garment from its impurity, which spread within it from the nega — it is compelling that "shall be washed" here means "immersion." For since the nega itself is no longer there — "departed" — and "shall be washed" is in order to purify the garment from impurity, it is understood that "shall be washed" means immersion, as with every impurity whose purification is specifically through immersion.
9. Based on this, it will be understood why, from the wording "shall be washed a second time," Rashi proves that the "shall be washed" of our verse is an expression of immersion:
The wording "shall be washed a second time" — that the garment should be washed a second time — clearly shows that the first washing also accomplished a certain purification, and that the other washing comes as a continuation of the earlier one; it is a second to the first. Consequently, one must say that both have the same content — both, that is, come to purify the garment. One cannot, then, explain that "shall be washed" means laundering, because according to that explanation one must say that the first washing accomplished no purification at all in the garment, but came only to quarantine it — and then the wording "shall be washed a second time" does not fit, since the two washings have no relation to each other: the earlier washing comes to quarantine, and the later one — to purify.
[And although both times the same action is performed (and on the contrary: from the practical side of washing, the expression "a second time" seemingly fits the explanation "an expression of laundering" more than the explanation "an expression of immersion," since specifically according to the explanation "an expression of laundering" the same action is performed both times), the verse, however, does not say "וכבס עוד פעם" ("shall be washed once more") — that it should be washed again — but "shall be washed a second time," a second time; and since the other washing does not come as a continuation of the earlier one, it cannot be called "second"; it is not a second to the first, but a matter in its own right.]
Therefore, one is compelled to explain that the first washing also already effected a certain purification; but since something was still lacking in the first washing, the garment must be washed a second time in order to complete and perfect the first purification. The first washing removed the nega from the garment and thereby purified it from the impurity of the nega itself; and after the impurity of the nega itself has entirely gone from the garment through its first washing15, the second washing comes to purify it also from the impurity that spread from the nega16.
10. In Rashi's commentary there is also the "יינה של תורה" ("the wine of Torah")17. Nega'im come (mainly) because of the sin of lashon hara (evil speech)18. And since lashon hara is an all-encompassing sin — as the Rambam19 says that lashon hara leads to the worst things, up to "לדבר באלקים וכופרין בעיקר" ("speaking against G‑d and denying the fundamental principle") — it is understood that the laws of purification from nega'im indicate the paths and manners of teshuvah (not only for that sin itself20, but also) for all sins in general:
Just as when a nega appears in a garment, even after it has been washed and the washing has removed the nega from it, it must be washed a second time — so too when a Jew commits a sin, even after he does teshuvah and the sin is entirely forgiven him, he still needs (an olah offering, and in the time of exile —) fasts, so that he become "מרוצה וחביב לפניו ית' כקודם החטא" ("accepted and beloved before Him, may He be blessed, as before the sin")21.
One might think that since he still needs fasts, this is a proof that the sin still remains within him. Rashi therefore gives a directive that already through the first washing "the nega departed from it entirely" (and as the Alter Rebbe says22, "שנמחל לו לגמרי" — "that he has been forgiven entirely"), and the fact that he is not yet "accepted and beloved before Him, may He be blessed, as before the sin" is only because there remains a certain effect that the sin caused — but the sin itself has already been wiped away.
And therefore, although there must be "כל ימיו בתשובה" ("all his days in teshuvah")23, since the sin has already been wiped away through teshuvah tata'ah (lower teshuvah), the teshuvah must consist not in washing away the sin — "washing" as an expression of laundering — but in immersion "במי הדעת הטהור" ("in the waters of pure knowledge")23, as stated in the Tanya24 that the teshuvah that must be "all his days" is teshuvah ila'ah (higher teshuvah), whose essence is25 "דיתעסק באורייתא כו'" ("that he occupy himself with Torah, etc.").
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Tazria, 5725)
Notes
1) 13:54, 55, 56. And also in this very verse itself — "...yischavar" [OCR unclear].
2) Shemini 11:25, 28, 40. Our parsha 13:6, 34. Metzora 14:9. And elsewhere.
3) For since there it speaks of garments that became impure on account of the person — and not that there was a nega in the garments — there is no reason whatsoever to think that their purification would be through laundering; and this is so simple that Rashi did not need to explain it there. In general, laundering applies (according to the plain meaning) when something needs to be removed from the garment — a stain and the like. See below in the main text.
4) Nevertheless, Rashi needed to explain this [here] (and also to bring a proof for his explanation) — unlike the places cited in note 2 — because (a) from the wording "shall be washed a second time" it is implied (at first glance) that the second washing is like the first — laundering; (b) since earlier, at any rate, there was a nega in the garment (although it has now already departed from it), there is room to say, at least in a strained way, that it would need to be laundered a second time by Scriptural decree, as in the explanation of the Ibn Ezra (and see below, section 8, that this explanation can also be understood rationally).
5) 13:56. See Rashi there.
6) In the Rambam, Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas 12:1, [it states] that when one tears out the place of the nega, "he washes all of it a second washing and immerses it"; and the Kesef Mishneh there [writes] that he learned this law from what is written, "shall be washed a second time," regarding a garment from which the nega has departed. But from the plain meaning of the verses — which is the approach of Rashi's commentary on the Torah — it is implied that "shall be washed a second time" refers only to "the nega has departed from them." [Therefore Rashi explains, regarding [a nega that] dimmed, that the place of the nega requires burning, but does not mention* that the whole garment requires washing and immersion.]
*) One cannot say that Rashi relies on what he wrote above, 13:6 (regarding nega'im of a person), "since it required quarantine, it is called impure and requires immersion" — for if so, the difficulty is doubled, since the verse here would then not have needed to say "shall be washed a second time," but could have relied on what was said above there.
7) See Rashi there (13:54).
8) As to why in the case of "departed" one must wash also [a portion] of the garment itself (if we were to say that "a second time" implies that it is exactly like the first washing — Rashi on verse 54), while in the case of "dimmed" one need tear out only the place of the nega itself — it is because when the place of the nega is torn out before the kohen has declared it impure (see the main text), it has no connection whatsoever with the garment.
One may further say that in the first quarantine, which is in order to clarify whether the nega will spread in the garment, the main object of the quarantine is the part of the garment surrounding the nega (cf. Rashi 13:33); therefore the action that follows, "and they shall wash it," although its purpose is to clarify whether in the future the nega will thereby dim or depart entirely, also contains an action relating to the past (to the quarantine) — similar to Rashi's comment regarding nega'im of a person, "since it required quarantine — it requires immersion" (13:6), although it is not exactly comparable. But the second quarantine, whose purpose is clarification only regarding the place of the nega — it is indeed so that (according to the plain meaning) there is no need to wash [any portion] of the garment itself.
9) Perhaps this too is alluded to in Rashi's words, "all washings of garments that are for immersion" — to explain that here too it is immersion (of the whole garment), as in all washings of garments.
10) For although it is possible to fold the garment in such a way that only the place of the nega is immersed — the meaning of the word and the concept of immersion is immersion of the whole of it. Otherwise, it is stated explicitly, "and he shall dip . . . his finger," and the like. See Rashi 15:11, who disagrees with the explanation of the Ibn Ezra. And this requires some further study from Bereishis 36:31 [as printed in the OCR; perhaps 37:31].
11) See Rashi above, 13:4: "and the signs will prove [its status]."
12) Rashi 13:2.
13) See Toras Kohanim here: "'Shall be washed a second time and it shall be clean' — the second [washing] is to purify it, and the first to quarantine its nega." And according to what is said in the main text, it is well understood why Toras Kohanim also quotes the word "and it shall be clean."
14) But it is not compelling. For [in addition to the fact that even according to the approach that the first washing is only for quarantine, one may say that the nega effected impurity throughout the garment,] even when we say that the second washing is in order to purify the garment from the impurity of the nega itself — since the nega is not visible to the eye, and only according to the laws of the Torah does its impurity remain, one may say that the purification is through immersion.
15) One may say that this is also Rashi's intention (in the comment beginning "and departed") in writing, "if when they washed it . . . the nega departed from it entirely" — that this is not only to explain the words "the nega has departed from them" [as in Toras Kohanim here: "'Departed' — might one think [it moved] from this side to that side? Scripture says 'from them' — until it is uprooted from them entirely"], but also as a kind of introduction to his explanation, "shall be washed a second time — an expression of immersion": since the nega has already departed entirely, it is understood that there is no need to launder it once again.
And accordingly, it is well understood why he writes, "if when they washed it at first by the word of the kohen" — which seems superfluous* — for his intention is to emphasize that (a) the "departing" is a result of the washing (that is, that the first washing too effected purity, as in the main text); (b) that the washing was by the word of the kohen, and consequently "the nega departed" also according to the laws of the Torah (see Rashi above, 13:2).
*) One cannot say that Rashi's intention in "if when they washed it at first by the word of the kohen" is to explain that "which you shall wash" refers to "and the kohen shall command, and they shall wash" (above, verse 54) — for (a) according to this, he would have needed to quote also the words "which you shall wash" from the verse; (b) "if when they washed it at first by the word of the kohen" and "the nega departed from it entirely" are two different matters, and Rashi would have needed to explain them as two separate comments ("which you shall wash — if when they washed it at first by the word of the kohen"; "the nega has departed from them — entirely"). Hence it is compelling that his intention in "if when they washed it" is to explain the manner of "departed," as in the main text of this note.
16) Nevertheless, Rashi needed to bring a proof from the Targum, because since, according to the plain sense, the wording "shall be washed a second time" points to the explanation of the Ibn Ezra, Rashi therefore brings an additional proof for his explanation from the Targum.
17) Hayom Yom, p. 24.
18) Rashi on the Torah, Shemos 4:6; our parsha, 13:46; Metzora 14:4; and elsewhere — regarding nega'im of a person. And in the Rambam, end of Hilchos Tumas Tzaraas, also regarding nega'im of garments and nega'im of houses. (Regarding nega'im of houses, Rashi explains (Metzora 14:34), "because they hid, etc." But regarding nega'im of garments this reason does not apply (especially since regarding nega'im of houses the inference is from the word "and I will place"), and it is reasonable that it is on account of lashon hara.)
19) Ibid.
20) See Rashi, Metzora, ibid.
21) Igeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 2.
22) Shabbos 153a.
23) See Rambam, end of Hilchos Mikvaos.
24) Igeres HaTeshuvah, ch. 11.
25) Ibid., ch. 8 (from the Raaya Mehemna, Parshas Naso).
Key Lesson
When a Jew does teshuvah, his sin is wiped away entirely — just as the first washing removed the nega completely. What remains is not the sin itself but only its after-effect, and so the lifelong teshuvah that follows is not a "laundering" of sin but an "immersion" in the pure waters of Torah study, a higher teshuvah that brings him close to G‑d.