JHI Dvar Torah on Parshat Tazria

This Dvar Torah was previously emailed April 15th 2010. Though significantly edited, this is fundamentally the same Dvar.

PARSHAT TAZRIA – POSITIVE AND PRE-EMPTIVE DISCIPLINE

The belief in G-d rewards and punishments is a fundamental tenet of Toraic Judaism. Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, this belief focuses primarily on outcomes that will play out in the afterlife. Will we immediately bask in the glories of G-d’s Eternal Paradise or will we have to first endure a painful cleansing process to expiate wrongdoings from our souls?

When the Temple stood, however, there were instances when G-d openly and immediately reacted to human misconduct.

Parshat Tazria describes that after people committed certain types of sins (especially slander), they were stricken with “Tzoraat.” This was a non-contagious leprous skin sore that rendered people spiritually impure. When something resembling this type of affliction was seen, a specially trained kohain (member of the priestly family) was summoned. His job was to determine whether it was a Miraculous Sign from G-d or a conventional disease. If it was the former, the afflicted person had to be distanced from the other Jews for a fixed period of time.

The Midrash Rabbah (Tazria, 15:4) relates that when the Jews became aware of the Torah’s laws of Tzoraat, they grew fearful. The Almighty then reassured them that the afflictions of Tzoraat were not intended for them. The Midrash compares this interaction between G-d and the Jews to a woman of rank who was invited to dine with the King. Upon entering the palace, she noticed implements of punishment on the walls, and she was terrified. The King then reassured her that those instruments were for rebellious slaves…but that her invitation to the palace was to eat, to drink and to rejoice. So too, Tzoraat was never meant as a punishment for the Jews.

The Commentary of the Etz Yosef observes that the Midrash appears to be saying that in both cases, there was never even the slightest expectation of actual punishment. Regarding the king’s guest, this is true – she was assured by the king himself that what she saw was only meant to be used on others. Tzoraat, however, did afflict Jews who sinned.

The Etz Yosef explains that the very real suffering associated with Tzoraat was indeed meant for the Jews. Yet, G-d’s intention in establishing Tzoraat was for it to act as a preventative measure. The Etz Yosef compares it to a father who showed his son a punishment rod to demonstrate the consequences for misbehavior. The father never meant to use the rod to strike the child. Rather, his loving intention was to create a threat that would ensure that his son would not act improperly. The child would thus be spared all future punishment. The showing of the rod was therefore, in essence, an act of unadulterated kindness without any aspect of harshness.

So too, The Almighty instituted the laws of Tzoraat to create a threat that would keep Jews on “the straight and narrow.” It was an act of pure kindness whose purpose was to assure that they would always act in an exemplary manner, thus never warranting G-d’s punishments.

LiAs this Midrash is a part of the Revealed Torah, all Jews are able to relate to this explanation behind the ritual of Tzoraat. If so, Jews are capable of assimilating these two seemingly contradictory feelings: G-d will indeed punish us if we transgress. Yet, His Tender and Caring Aim is to preclude our sinning so that we will never suffer His Punishments.

Furthermore: The Midrash’s example of the woman was included to explain what Hashem was communicating to the Jews about His Punishments. In that case, she did not merely theoretically understand that the king did not intend to punish her. Rather, the king told her to rejoice. The implication is that people have the capacity to be terrified of G-d’s punishments while simultaneously rejoicing over that very same fact. In fact, the Midrash is teaching that to properly serve The Almighty, Jews should embrace this duality.



In an interpersonal setting, instituting discipline can be a tricky matter. Parents and teachers of young children and bosses in a workplace must have some guidelines that are enforced. Exercising too much authority, especially when punishing improper conduct, can foster counterproductive ill will. Exercising too little authority, however, can be equally harmful to the children or the business.

This Midrash provides those in positions of authority with two general and attitudinal guidelines:
As a rule, reasonable expectations should be insisted upon. Overlooking these demands is ill advised. Nevertheless, when exercising authority, it must be made abundantly clear to those involved that the intention is high-minded and for everyone’s benefit. In this spirit, Hashem explained to the Jews that the laws of Tzoraat were not instituted in order to punish the Jews. Rather, the very opposite was true. The purpose was so that Jews would not suffer punishment. (Accordingly, when one’s exercise of authority is prompted by ego or insecurity, it is a far from ideal situation – to say the least.)

The Torah is also indicating that authority must be exercised very cleverly. On one hand, it must contain real and effective threats of what might occur if expectations are not met or rules not followed. Yet, it should be applied intelligently and in a fashion that is almost entirely pre-emptive in nature. If, however, the threats have to ever be actually carried out, much will be lost.


Please consider sponsoring this weekly email Dvar Torah. It is a meaningful way to note an occasion such as a graduation, birthday, anniversary, yahrzeit, etc. The “cost” is $120. The sponsorship will be noted in the Dvar. Thank you in advance!