1

I am aware that most authorities assume that tzaraas is not leprosy, but I don't feel completely comfortable with most of the explanations they offer.

Most importantly, the description of the symptoms seem to be quite similar. There are those who argue that if it is indeed contagious then how is it possible not to declare someone tamei, based on some external circumstances (for example, chag or wedding)? But nowadays we know that leprosy is not considered extremely contagious.

According to our primary sources: we have a clear Gemara in Pesachim 76b, where Rashi identifies דבר אחר as צרעת. And it is being caused by consuming meat and fish together. Which does not seem to be a "spiritual" cause at all.

And Targum Shiv'im is being blamed for "mistranslating" it for leprosy. But Targum Shiv'im is considered very authoritative in the narrative in Megillah 9a-b. So why are so easy to disregard its identification?

Are there anyone (possibly authentic) who argues that they are actually the same?

Binyomin
  • 1,148
  • 6
  • 15
  • Related: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/114529/why-is-tzaaraas-considered-a-sakana – Binyomin Apr 01 '22 at 11:01
  • Your two rayos are pretty unconvincing. Who says the tzaras of fish and meat is the same tzaras of the Chumash? Tzaras of the Chumash needs a kohen and there's a whole halachic teshuva process, whereas meat and fish is described as a sakana. Also targum shivim is hardly authoritative as it was corrupted over time. My proof? It has more changes than described by the gemarra. Those changes carry no weight. – robev Apr 01 '22 at 12:05
  • You need a more solid proof to prove that Tzaraas of the Chumash is not the same as the Tzaraas of the Gemara than to assume that it is the same, since they have the same exact name. Bring at least a source than such an assumption. – Binyomin Apr 01 '22 at 12:08
  • Sorry, I don't understand what do you mean by "changes". – Binyomin Apr 01 '22 at 12:09
  • It's not an assumption. I brought some clear differences between the two. I don't deny they share a name. – robev Apr 01 '22 at 12:09
  • The gemarra you quote shows how they changed from the literal translation in a number of places. The Septuagint we have has more instances of those, including the one you brought – robev Apr 01 '22 at 12:10
  • The assumption is that after the fish-meat tzaraas you don't need a kohen. How do you know about this? – Binyomin Apr 01 '22 at 12:13
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – robev Apr 01 '22 at 12:16
  • 1
    Everyone should avoid the common logical fallacy here and review https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/128706/medical-term-for-aylonit-%d7%90%d7%99%d7%99%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%99%d7%aa?noredirect=1#comment426315_128706 The two conditions are clearly not literally perfectly identical, but that doesn't mean leprosy wasn't often categorized as a form of tzaraat. – Double AA Apr 01 '22 at 12:44
  • 1
    https://www.torahmusings.com/2014/04/contemporary-tzaraat/ – Double AA Apr 01 '22 at 12:47
  • My best guess is there is natural tzaraas caused by eating fish and dairy, and supernatural tzaraas as Divine punishment. They are similar but do not overlap. Natural tzaraas can be a category that includes multiple conditions, of which at least some are contagious. Supernatural tzaraas also has several conditions, which are not contagious. Both resulted in qurarantine: the natural kind to prevent contagion, the supernatural kind as part of the punishment. One could argue that the natural kind was not always contagious, as Naaman the non-Jewish general had tzaraas but didn't seem to quarantine – N.T. Apr 01 '22 at 23:44
  • 1
    I heard this suggestion already several times (without a source), and I don't really understand what is the pressure for such an inconvenient assumption of one word denoting two distinct concepts. The mere fact that it comes sometimes as punishment does not exclude that it can also come by natural means! All derech hatevah punishments work this way. – Binyomin Apr 02 '22 at 21:54
  • Strongly related https://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/101843/16354 – רבות מחשבות Apr 03 '22 at 21:58
  • 1
    @Binyomin The word itself denotes one concept: skin disease. It can have multiple types. Compare it to cancer, which has multiple diseases of differing severity and causes. Some (like HPV) are contagious, some aren't. The pressure for this assumption is the conflicting descriptions of tzaraas we find in pesukim and Chazal. – N.T. Apr 04 '22 at 01:35

2 Answers2

2

In Fred Rosner's Medicine in the Bible & the Talmud, which is in large part a re-working of Julius Preuss's Biblisch-Talmudische Medizin, he includes an introductory essay by Alexander Suessman Muntner. In the essay Muntner touches upon the topic of צרעת and its identification. He argues that the term צרעת refers to a variety of conditions, but that there are times, such as צרעת המצח, that it does indeed refer to leprosy.

Medicine in the Bible & the Talmud, pp.10-11:

Since most of the medical terminology found in the Bible has been translated by non-physicians, there frequently is some confusion with regard to the real meaning of some terms. One case in point is the Hebrew ẓara'at (efflorescens), which actually does not refer to one specific diagnosis but covers a wide variety of infectious and noninfectious skin ailments. The fault lies in the original Septuagint version, which renders ẓara'at throughout as "leprosy." Actually, the ancients used the term "leprosy" not for the disease known by that name nowadays, but to denote the condition to which modern medicine refers as "psoriasis." The term ẓara'at can denote many different conditions, depending on the combinations in which it is used. Thus neg'a ha-ẓara'at is an infectious skin disease—perhaps yaws; zara'at 'or ha-basar (Lev. 13:43; usually rendered as "leprosy in the skin of the flesh") is ulcus durum penis; ẓara'at poraḥat (Lev. 13:42) is leishmaniasis; ẓara'at noshenet (Lev. 13:11) is chronic syphilis (yaws et al.); zara'at ha-rosh is trichophytia; ẓara'at mameret ha-beged is a fungus growth that can be transferred to clothing; and ẓara'at ha-bayit is a saprophytic contamination of dwellings. In some instances the term ẓara'at used by itself does have the meaning of "leprosy." Thus, ẓara'at ha-mezaḥ is lepra leonina. It is only natural that in the course of the thousand-year period covered by biblical medicine certain variants should have been introduced.

If you are wondering where this variety of צרעת is referred to, see II Chronicles 26:19-20.

Deuteronomy
  • 8,112
  • 21
  • 37
1

Jacob Milgrom in his commentary to Leviticus 13 writes that the greek term lepra doesn't mean leprosy:

Biblical ṣāraʿat is difficult to identify. One thing, however, is certain: it is not leprosy (Hansen’s disease), despite Preuss 1978: 324–26).This was well known in Hellenistic times, for the LXX translates ṣāraʿat consistently by lepra, not by the Greek term for leprosy, elephas or elephantiasis. Indeed, it is most probable that true leprosy was totally unknown in the Near East before the Hellenistic period, and it is surmised that it was first brought into the area by Alexander’s armies when they returned from India. Apparently, the two diseases were not confused until the ninth century C.E., when the Arab physician John of Damascus referred to leprosy by the term lepra (Andersen 1969), and his mistake persists till this day. According to the most recent investigation, the disease that fulfills most of the characteristics of this chapter is psoriasis. But to judge by the quarantine procedures prescribed in this chapter, even this identification is in doubt.

Your old Chavruta

Itkind
  • 49
  • 3