Lévitique 14:2

This shall be the law for the leper: on the day of his purification he shall be brought to the priest.

he will be brought connotes the same here as it does above [13:2; 13:9], since, once the affliction of ṣara‘at has gone away, he might not want to bring the obligatory sacrifice.

THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. Scripture is stating that this shall be the law of the leper in the day that he wishes to be pronounced pure, that he should be brought to the priest, as he can never attain purity except by means of the priest’s word. Then [in the following verse] Scripture tells that the priest shall go forth to the place of his [the leper’s] habitation out of the camp, but he [the leper] is not to come to the priest even though his leprosy has been healed. The interpretation thereof in the Torath Kohanim is as follows: 1:3. “And he shall be brought unto the priest, this means that he is not to wait.” If so, Scripture is stating that on the same day that he is cleansed, [meaning] that he is cured from his leprosy, (on the day of his cleansing) as meaning: “on the day that he is to be pronounced clean, he is to be brought to the priest, for no one else can so pronounce him” (see Note 46 in Seder Tazria). But according to the Torath Kohanim the verse means: “on the day he is actually ‘cleansed’ of the sickness, i.e., on the day that he is physically healed of the affliction, there must be no delay and he is to be brought before the priest.” he is to be brought even against his will to the priest. Similarly, the verses, And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; But if she be cleansed of her issue,, Verse 28. mean when [the issues] will cease and the persons become cleansed of them, as I have explained [i.e., that the term “cleansing” in the verse before us means “the healing” of the leprosy, and the same meaning applies to “the cleansing,” of him or her that hath an issue]. This is the correct explanation.

והובא אל הכהן, to a site near the boundary of the encampment where the priest can come to inspect the afflicted person easily without having to subject himself to special effort.

זאת תהיה תורת המצורע, “This shall be the law of the person afflicted with the skin diseases discussed in the previous chapters, etc.” the very word מצורע contains a hint that describes why, in most instances, such a person has been afflicted with this disease. It is because he bad-mouthed fellow Jews. The word is a combination of מוציא שם רע, “he called someone by a bad name.” Compare Talmud tractate Erchin folio 16. We also find that the Talmud attributes the demise of four people who had been guilty of this sin as losing their claim to an afterlife; they are: Bileam, Doag, Achitofel, and Geychazi, the disciple of the prophet Elisha. (Compare details in the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin folio 106. [That chapter deals with people who have or will forfeit their claim to an afterlife. Ed.]Solomon in Kohelet,5,5, also deals with this subject when he wrote: אל תתן את פיך לחטיא את בשרך, “let not your mouth bring guilt on your flesh;” which sin did he had in mind? The sin of badmouthing fellow Jews. Solomon referred to the same sin in Proverbs 18,21, when he said: מות וחיים ביד לשון, “death and life are within the power of the tongue.” Death is liable to follow abuse of the power of speech, whereas life is at the disposal of people who meticulously observe the Torah and study it. The Torah is the remedy with which the sin of evil gossip can be atoned for. It is known as the עץ חיים, “the tree of life.” We know this also from Solomon, who said in Proverbs 15,4: מרפא לשון עץ חיים, “the tree of life can heal (the harm caused) by abusing one’s power of speech.” Intensive Torah study prevents a person from becoming guilty of using his power of speech. The guilt of לשון הרע, evil gossip, is considered as greater that that of being guilty of shedding innocent blood. When one is guilty of the latter, one had only killed one life, whereas when one is guilty of evil gossip, one is guilty of killing at least three people, the one who engages in it, the one who listens to it, and the one about whom this evil gossip has been spread. We find an illustration of this in Samuel I 22, where King Sha-ul killed all the priests resident in the city of Nov because he had listened to the false accusations spread against them by Doag. Sha-ul was killed on account of that sin as we know from Samuel Il 1,9: עמוד נא ומותתני כי אחזני השבץ, “stand over me and finish me off, for | am in agony and barely alive;” whenever we encounter the expression שבץ, it refers to the priestly garments, as we know from Exodus 28,39: ושבצת הכתונת שש, “make the fringed tunic out of fine linen.” Concerning Doag, the slanderer, in this story we have it on the authority of Psalms 52,7 that he was killed in this world and deprived of the after life, i.e. גם אל יתצך לנצח יחתך וגו', “also G–d will tear you down for good, and root you out, etc.” The Talmud in tractate Erchin, folio 15, states that the sin of tale-bearing is greater than murder, incest or idolatry.