Shabbos Parashas Tazria-Metzora - 5778

Shabbos Parashas Tazria-Metzora - 5778

Rabbi Hal Miller

God spoke to Moshe and Aharon, saying. [Vayikra 13:1]

Most of the time, the Torah tells us, God spoke to Moshe saying. Moshe then is to

teach the subject matter to Aharon and his sons, to the elders, and/or to the nation

as a whole, as appropriate. But occasionally, the Torah includes Aharon in this kind

of statement, such as our verse. What do we learn from this? Would the other, shorter

formula not work just as well, where Moshe taught Aharon anyway?

Many commentators think that this double-recipient format is an indication that the

Kohanim are to be specially involved in the commandment that follows. This seems

to follow from various places, such as Devarim 21:5, which relates information about

the Kohanim resolving leprosy problems. But this is problematic in many other places.

Ramban says that this style of including Aharon is a directive to Moshe to teach the

law directly to Aharon, but that God actually only spoke to Moshe. He brings a couple

of proofs, one being where God spoke to Noach and his sons, and another in Shemos

[7:8] that seems pretty solid. After beginning exactly like our verse, it continues there

to say, "you shall say to Aharon, take your staff", etc. That certainly seems to be

addressed only to Moshe.

Rav Hirsch disagrees. He points to verses where there is no direct tie to Aharon nor

the Kohanim in general. He also points out that some of the wording is specifically

plural, such as in Vayikra 11:1, where it says, "And God spoke to Moshe and to Aharon

saying to them" (plural) then discussing food we may eat. This command is to be told

over to the people at large, not just Aharon and the Kohanim, and it is clearly stated in

the plural to the two brothers. His explanation is that the two brothers had different

roles. Moshe was the transcriber, the one responsible for getting God's commandments

out to the people. Aharon was responsible for educating, for making sure that the

people are comfortable with what they need to do. When dealing with Temple service,

the people needed to know what was going on, but when dealing with kashrus, they

needed to live it, therefore to integrate into their belief system. That was Aharon's job.

The Torah did not waste words. It specifies Aharon in some of the instances, not

because Moshe was supposed to go then and teach Aharon something, but because

Aharon had a job that required hearing first-hand what the commandment was. Why

does this apply in our verse? At the end of verse 2 we see that a person with tzaraas

is to be brought to the Kohen for analysis. Would people in general want to grab this

guy with leprosy and haul him off to court? Most likely they would just stay away. Our

verse has to be explained by Aharon so the people will take it upon themselves.