The nega is not to be negated. Our parsha discusses the curious phenomenon of a “nega”—a certain element known as tzaraat, which can come from certain misdeeds. In Parshat Metzora the Torah (14:35) says that if a person sees tzaraat on his house, then the owner should come to the kohen and tell him “something like a nega appeared to me on the house” (the status of whether it is tamei (impure) or tahor (pure) is subject to the kohen’s discretion, as only he is authorized to give the “psak”—the halachic ruling—whether the nega is tamei or tahor). The mishna (Nega’im, 12:5) says, even if the owner is a talmid chacham who knows with certainty that it’s a nega, nevertheless he shouldnt relate to the kohen in definitive terms of “it’s a nega” but rather in the indefinite—“something like a nega…” Why? The Tosafot Yom Tov brings the Gevurat Ari who explains that if he says it in definite terms, this is considered sheker—falsehood.
The question is, why would it be sheker to speak in the definite if he is a scholar who knows clearly it’s a nega? R’ Nosson Tzvi Finkel (1849-1927) in Ohr Hatzafun 3, p. 12, broadens this wonderment. He says that not only may we be dealing with the owner being a highly learned person, but also the kohen may be a totally unlearned person who is relying fully on the owner’s discretion as to whether he thinks it’s a nega or not. Hence, the owner—although he won’t render the final decision—will actually be the one whose decision the kohen will follow! Further, realize what’s at stake here for the owner if the nega is actually tamei. If it’s declared to be tamei, then this will potentially cause a significant loss for the house owner. Therefore, technically this owner can trick the kohen and tell him it’s tahor, and so, if instead he is coming to say it’s tamei, then he seemingly has high credibility and believability since he is actively showing he will be incurring a loss! If that’s the case, shouldn’t this all the more so show how true and reliable his statement is?
The Tosafot Yom Tov explains what the issue at hand is. In the common vernacular, when one refers to the term “nega”—the meaning it carries is that it’s an impure nega. Hence, since this nega that the owner finds isn’t a confirmed tamei nega (but only until the kohen declares it as such), then it lacks the underlying meaning that nega carries in its practical sense. Therefore, if he says “it’s a nega” in definite terms, then it’s considered sheker—falsehood. [Similarly, if I remember correctly, I heard from R’ Binyamin Luban whom I believe was quoting from the Chazon Ish that if one calls a broken pen a “pen,” that’s a false statement, for a “pen” as we know it means a pen that works].
Based on this, it doesn’t matter what level of capability, smarts and believability the owner has, and even if it’s his decision that the kohen will follow. Still, since right now, at this moment, this nega is not a confirmed tamei “nega,” then him saying “it’s a nega” in definitive terms isn’t truthful and therefore considered sheker—falsehood.
We see from here the extent to which it means to speak truthfully, and the fine line between sheker and emet. The Torah is teaching us that the definition of emet is precise, exact and entails 100% accuracy. And thus, even a slight, seemingly insignificant and infinitesimal deviation from truth is—according to the Torah’s standards—sheker.
One can wonder, why is the Torah expressing its definition of emet and sheker and the fine line between them in this specific context with this house owner?
One of the laws of nega’im that we learn in our parsha of Tazria is that if a person’s entire body is covered with tzaraat, he is not tamei (13:12-13). This seems counterintuitive: if he has more, isn’t that more of an indication that he did many wrongdoings and is therefore tamei? R’ Moshe Isserlis (Torat Ha’ola, 3, 67) explains that a person whose entire body is covered with nega’im represents a person who is entirely evil. It’s obvious to everyone to distance themselves from such a person. However, someone not fully covered with nega’im represents someone who has good, but also has not good. It’s a mixture, which is sometimes not so obvious. Hence, people may not see what to stay away from and as a result may become influenced. Therefore, he specifically is tamei and needs to be distanced from Bnei Yisrael for a certain amount of time.
We learn from R’ Isserlis that if a person has many good qualities but also has qualities or deeds that can influence others in negative ways, people may not be able to correclty discern and thus may eventually be affected. Interestingly, our parsha introduces the laws of nega’im by referring to the protagonist as “adam,” which the Zohar says is a title of nobility. Considering that we are referring to an honorable person, a person whom the public may even recognize as a distinguished leader, or at the very least a prominent individual, it therefore perhaps becomes more necessary now to make people aware of what they need to be cautious of.
Based on this, perhaps that is the fine line between emet and sheker in the context of such an individual. For the Torah may be sending him a message to see through the blurriness of his essence, to introspect and see that there is some sheker, some lack of truth—meaning, that there are some inappropriate deeds or qualities that may require teshuva—even if you may be a talmid chacham or a well-worked-out person with outstanding qualities and deeds.
Through understanding what emet is, and appreciating and reaching its value, one can be empowered with clarity to distinguish between the good and the not good, what’s truthful in his way of living and what may not be.
Binyamin Benji can be reached at [email protected]
