The Torah gives an elaborate elucidation of the laws of Tzaraat. It goes into a great level of detail, describing this affliction affecting houses, clothing, and skin. It is thus surprising to encounter a position in the Talmud that states that there has never actually been a house afflicted with Tzaraat, and there never will be.

תלמוד בבלי – סנהדרין עא.

כְּמַאן אָזְלָא הָא דְּתַנְיָא בַּיִת הַמְנוּגָּע לֹא הָיָה וְלֹא עָתִיד לִהְיוֹת וְלָמָּה נִכְתַּב דְּרוֹשׁ וְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר…תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק מָקוֹם הָיָה בִּתְחוּם עַזָּה וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתוֹ חוּרְבָּתָא סְגִירְתָּא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ כְּפַר עַכּוֹ פַּעַם אַחַת הָלַכְתִּי לְגָלִיל וְרָאִיתִי מָקוֹם שֶׁמְּצַיְּינִין אוֹתוֹ וְאָמְרוּ אֲבָנִים מְנוּגָּעוֹת פִּינוּ לְשָׁם.

Talmud Bavli – Sanhedrin 71a:18-20

The Gemara asks another similar question: In accordance with whose opinion is that which is taught in a baraita: There has never been a house afflicted with leprosy of the house and there will never be one in the future. And why, then, was the passage relating to leprosy of the house written in the Torah? So that you may expound upon new understandings of the Torah and receive reward for your learning…It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off as an impure place, and they said that stones afflicted with leprosy were cast there. This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed.

This position is even more astounding given that the Talmud immediately quotes a reliable source who reports seeing a case with his own eyes. This is no mere accident, as the Talmud follows this pattern three times. Regarding the rebellious son, the condemned city, and the leprous house, the Talmud records a statement that they never occurred and never will occur, followed by a statement from an eye-witness who saw a case personally.

Why did the Talmud not adopt the position that there were instances in history where these mitzvot were put into practice? Once there was a verified report, why even include the alternate possibility that they never happened? Furthermore, what is the idea of “expound and receive reward” which apparently goes hand in hand with the position that these mitzvot never occurred? We should learn every area of Torah, what is specific about this specific set of mitzvot?

Rambam - Guide for the Perplexed – Book III Chapter 47

The uncleanness through leprosy we have already explained. Our Sages have also dearly stated the meaning thereof. All agree that leprosy is a punishment for slander. The disease begins in the walls of the houses (Lev. xiv. 33, seq.). If the sinner repents, the object is attained: if he remains in his disobedience, the disease affects his bed and house furniture: if he still continues to sin, the leprosy attacks his own garments, and then his body. This is a miracle received in our nation by tradition.

The Rambam among others, following the Sages, explains that Tzaraat was a physical manifestation of a spiritual malady. It provides a prompt to an individual to change his or her ways. Why don’t we see it nowadays?

ספורנו ויקרא יג:מז

וכאשר לא עלו הדורות למדרגה ראויה לחמלה זו, אין זכרון לראשונים שנמצאו לעולם נגעי בתים, עד שאמרו קצתם ז"ל שלא היו לעולם.

Rabbi Ovadia Sforno - Vayikra 13:47

But when (subsequent) generations did not attain the proper level which would make them worthy of this compassion, there is no (longer) any memory of these early (phenomena) of the affliction of houses, bring some Sages to stay that they never ever happened!

The Sforno explains that this institution only operates when the people are worthy of direct feedback. He explains this as the cause for why the Sages state that these cases never happened. One also wonders if people who fall short of this level would respond to the feedback appropriately.

For much of history, seeing a rebellious son, a condemned city, or a leprous house was not a practical possibility. No doubt it would have been impactful to witness such an event firsthand. But these mitzvot, and mitzvot in general, do not only provide benefit in practice. In fact, the Talmud, through its statement that these cases never occurred and never will occur, combined with the exhortation of “expound and receive reward”, conveys that learning about these mitzvot confers a primary benefit. Even if these cases were never to have occurred, or never seen by most members of the Jewish people, the ideas of these mitzvot can still be appreciated. It is a remarkable position, but the side of “expound and receive reward” means that this is a principal benefit of the institution. Investigating, analyzing, defining, and understanding the mitzvah’s structure achieves the primary objective of this mitzvah being given at Sinai. A mitzvah we might not encounter on any regular basis, or at all, can still provide substantial and essential benefit.

References

Maimonides, M., & Friedlander, M. (1953). The guide of the perplexed of Maimonides. New York: Hebrew Publishing Co.

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Sforno O. ben J. & Pelcovitz R. (1987). Sforno : commentary on the torah = beʼur ʻal ha-torah le-rabi ʻovadyah sforno (1st ed.). Mesorah.

Steinsaltz, A., In Weinreb, T. H., In Schreier, J., & Hotsaat Koren (Jerusalem),. (2017). Koren Talmud Bavli, the Noe edition: Talmud Bavli. Retrieved from: https://shas.alhatorah.org/

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bentorah.substack.com