Why is Tzaara'as considered a Sakana?

B”H. I don’t know if you’ve gotten your answer to this question yet, but I’d like to provide my standpoint on it, and we could discuss it. From what I can gather, you’re wondering why there is a greater stringency placed upon washing one’s hands between eating fish and meat due to the inherent danger of Tza’aras, and more specifically, why this particular type of Tzaaras is life threatening.

Firstly, I’d like to direct your focus to a particular point, just because there aren’t any sources that say it was dangerous, doesn’t make it inherently safe. Far from it. Just because a malady is spiritual doesn’t mean that it cannot be deadly, and threaten the body as well. Secondly, the particular Tza’aras you’re referencing is the one mentioned by Rashi. Given that the illness and particular malady hadn’t been present for thousands of years meant that it must have been extremely rare, for whatever reason; possibly because it was well-understood that this malady was particularly lethal, enough to be mentioned explicitly, as a footnote to the otherwise broad assortment of Tza’aras. If not lethal, it was definitely rare, given the extremely low frequency of cases of it as mentioned by Rashi. Thirdly, you mentioned that we have no sources saying it’s dangerous, even though poskim and the Shulchan Aruch themselves label it as such. We know it was life-threatening, because it was treated as such. Obviously, the specifics cannot be completely discerned, as this disease has not been identified in anyone today as far as I am aware, and what exactly it was is anyone’s guess at this point.

Given what we are aware of, we can deduce that this skin condition had to have some degree of lethality or danger, coupled with its low frequency. That’s my explanation for why it was listed as such, so we should both agree that despite a lack of additional sources, it was generally understood to be life-threateningly dangerous for one reason or another.

I’d also like to point out that type of Tza’aras is regarded equally as dangerous for the spirit, as it is for the body. If anything, this only serves to reinforce my point. It would definitely have an impact on someone’s Tahara to be afflicted with this condition.

I am deeply sorry that I couldn’t produce any sources for my argument, but I decided to apply some logic to it, in order to try and establish a general understanding of the Tza’aras before either of us can elaborate further.

To give an answer to your other question, though, I think that the general understanding of Tza’aras can be any skin malady, though most often leprosy. And given that it has both a spiritual aspect to it, and a physical one inherent in the fact that it presents itself on the skin in one form or another, we can infer that it had some physical aspect to it. I’m certain that other Tza’aras (such as leprosy) could come about naturally within someone. But in the exact same way, HaShem could afflict someone with it as punishment for Lashon Hara or miserliness.

posted over 4 years ago

EliyahuBAvraham‭

1 reputation 0 1 0 0

When asked about the danger of eating fish and meat together, I heard in the name of Rav Tzvi Berkowitz that it may be similar to a smoking one cigarette where each one is technically dangerous in the sense that it damages one's health. Is one going to be deadly? For the vast majority of people - no. As you increase the number of cigarettes smokes, each one builds onto the next and causes further danger to that individual's life. Similarly, eating fish and meat together may not be an immediate danger for the vast majority of people.

As for the second question, perhaps transgressing the words of the Rabanan in Pesachim (76b) warrant tzara'as. Similar to Rav Dovid Zvi Hoffman's words in Vayikra (p. 220)

"Tzara'at does not generate tum'a because it results from the sin [for this is not always the case; other illnesses also result from various sins but do not generate tum'a]. Rather, tzara'at generates tum'a because the outward appearance of the disease is the symbolic image of the sinner."

Someone who doesn't care about a concern the Rabanan decreed on the nation would seem to be lacking something from within which warrants the projected image of tzara'as. (Not getting into whether nature has changed nowadays since you are only asking the questions according to the opinions who say this danger is still going strong.) Alternatively, if we understand the issue is one of danger, then perhaps the tzara'as would also be warranted for those who transgress the command to protect their life - וְנÖ´שְׁמַרÖ°תÖ¶Ö¼ם מְאֹד לְנÖ·פÖ°שֹׁתÖµ×™×›Ö¶ם (Devarim 4:15). Along the lines of, 'If you don't care about your health with meat/fish, then I'll give you dangerous tzara'as to see if you wake up to protect your health or continue not caring.

An additional point to consider is the scientific findings that

stearic acid found in beef and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) found in fish have been found to exacerbate psoriasis. We also see that omega-3 fatty acids from fish enhance TNFalpha which is also implicated in psoriasis.

Some point to parallels between tzara'as and psoriasis, a skin disorder which can be dangerous in rare circumstances. (I don't know how those opinions explain that it spreads to clothing and the house...)

The Midrash Tanchuma (Metzora 4) brings a list of aveiros which can bring about tzara'as, including chillul Hashem, stealing, instigating arguments between brothers, etc. Since causing harm to our body is 'stealing' in a sense from the One Who lent us our body, it may warrant tzara'as as well.

posted over 4 years ago

NJM‭

1 reputation 0 2 0 0