This lesson does not focus on a particular chapter, but on a question that lies at the very root of all Tanach study: how to read the language of Scripture correctly. Often we read a verse and think we have understood it, and then Chazal present a derashah that seemingly has no basis in the text. The impression can arise that the homiletic interpretation was "grafted" onto the verse from the outside. The reality is quite the opposite: the derashah is embedded within the words themselves. One simply needs to recognize the code, the language, and the fine nuances to which the author of the book was attentive. We will examine several examples and see, time and again, how the linguistic key unlocks the derashah.
In the account of Bilam there is an extraordinary wonder, even for one reading the text at the level of peshat. Balak fears the people of Israel who are drawing near and bordering his land, and he realizes that within a short time they will wage war against him and dispossess him of his country. He has a secret weapon, whose name is Bilam. For the people of Israel have their own secret weapon, Moshe Rabbeinu, and Moshe is no conventional weapon. Balak therefore understands that he must enlist an unconventional force, a person endowed with supernatural powers. Bilam was indeed such a figure, and not merely under an illusion: the Torah defines him as a prophet, and Chazal remarked that while no prophet arose in Israel like Moshe, among the nations of the world one did arise, namely Bilam. At least initially, he possessed the rank of a prophet.
Now let us examine the dialogue between the Creator of the world and Bilam, which is altogether wondrous. Balak's messengers arrive to invite him to an "engagement" that cannot be refused: come and curse the people of Israel, there is a great deal of money involved, and it will be well worth your while.
וַיֹּאמֶר אֲלֵיהֶם לִינוּ פֹה הַלַּיְלָה וַהֲשִׁבֹתִי אֶתְכֶם דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר יְדַבֵּר ה' אֵלָי, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב עִם בִּלְעָם - "And he said to them: 'Lodge here tonight, and I will bring you back word as Hashem will speak to me'; and the princes of Moav stayed with Bilam."
וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם וַיֹּאמֶר מִי הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה עִמָּךְ - "And God came to Bilam and said: 'Who are these men with you?'"
Bilam replies that Balak the son of Tzippor, king of Moav, sent to him: "Behold, there is a people that came out of Egypt and covers the face of the earth; come now, curse them for me" - meaning place a curse upon them - "perhaps I will be able to fight against them and drive them out." And here comes the first reply:
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לֹא תֵלֵךְ עִמָּהֶם, לֹא תָאֹר אֶת הָעָם כִּי בָרוּךְ הוּא - "And God said to Bilam: 'You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.'"
Bilam informs the messengers that he cannot come; the Holy One, blessed be He, does not consent, and it is impossible. Balak sends once again, this time dispatching more distinguished nobles, and Bilam tells them: "Please tarry here tonight, you too, so that I may know what more Hashem will speak with me" - wait, we will make contact again and see what the Creator of the world thinks now. And here is the second reply:
וַיָּבֹא אֱלֹהִים אֶל בִּלְעָם לַיְלָה וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אִם לִקְרֹא לְךָ בָּאוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים קוּם לֵךְ אִתָּם, וְאַךְ אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תַעֲשֶׂה - "And God came to Bilam at night and said to him: 'If the men have come to call you, rise up and go with them; but only the word that I speak to you, that shall you do.'"
Just a moment ago You told him, "You shall not go with them," so why suddenly now, "Rise up and go with them"? Ostensibly, the Creator of the world changed His mind. Yet we immediately see that this is not the case:
וַיָּקָם בִּלְעָם בַּבֹּקֶר וַיַּחֲבֹשׁ אֶת אֲתֹנוֹ וַיֵּלֶךְ עִם שָׂרֵי מוֹאָב, וַיִּחַר אַף אֱלֹהִים כִּי הוֹלֵךְ הוּא - "And Bilam rose up in the morning, saddled his donkey, and went with the princes of Moav; and God's anger flared because he was going."
Master of the Universe, what is going on here? After all, just before this he was told, "Rise up, go with them" (lekh itam), so why now does "God's wrath flare because he was going"? And what is more, an angel stands in the road as an adversary against him, while he is riding on his donkey with his two lads accompanying him, and the donkey sees the angel while he does not, and a confrontation ensues. In the end, Bilam says to the angel of Hashem: "I have sinned, for I did not know that you were standing against me on the road; and now, if it is evil in your eyes, I will turn back." He is already prepared to return home. And then:
וַיֹּאמֶר מַלְאַךְ ה' אֶל בִּלְעָם לֵךְ עִם הָאֲנָשִׁים, וְאֶפֶס אֶת הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר אֲדַבֵּר אֵלֶיךָ אֹתוֹ תְדַבֵּר, וַיֵּלֶךְ בִּלְעָם עִם שָׂרֵי בָלָק - "And the angel of Hashem said to Bilam: 'Go with the men, but only the word that I speak to you, that shall you speak.' And Bilam went with the princes of Balak."
"Ve'efes" here does not simply mean zero or nothing, but rather "and only." But is the entire issue really just don't go, do go, don't go, do go? One could almost suggest that the Creator of the world is toying with him and mocking him, but you will agree that this makes no sense. To understand, let us turn to another teaching of Chazal, which also seems at first glance detached from the plain text, yet precisely it will reveal the key to us.
There is a halachah that a master must provide for his Hebrew servant exactly as he provides for himself. The Torah states:
וְהָיָה כִּי יֹאמַר אֵלֶיךָ לֹא אֵצֵא מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אֲהֵבְךָ וְאֶת בֵּיתֶךָ כִּי טוֹב לוֹ עִמָּךְ - "And it shall be, if he says to you, 'I will not leave you,' because he loves you and your household, for it is good for him with you."
And Chazal expounded: The Rabbis taught, "'For it is good for him with you' (immakh) - with you in food and with you in drink. You may not eat fine white bread while he eats coarse bran bread." Today, coarse whole-grain or barley bread is considered high quality, since the more natural the food, the better it is regarded, but in those days it was considered animal fodder. You cannot go eat delicacies while tossing scraps to your servant. You may not drink aged vintage wine while he drinks cheap new wine - you drinking a vintage from 1974 while giving him a bottle from 1986. You may not sleep on soft down cushions while he sleeps on straw, preparing a luxurious bed for yourself while giving your servant an old mattress. From this the Sages stated: Whoever acquires a Hebrew servant is like one who acquires a master over himself. Did you think you were getting someone to serve you? Bear in mind that you bought yourself a boss. Today every employer knows this, that whoever hires an employee has acquired a master over himself, because they immediately present him with a list of rights, and before he has even begun working he already demands vacation time, per diems, and the like. But in biblical times this was unheard of, yet the Torah obligates the master to provide for him this way.
And the question cries out: None of this appears explicitly in the verse. Where did Chazal derive that you are obligated to give him exactly as you take for yourself? Where have we ever heard of such a thing, that a master must provide for a servant on par with himself?
In Lashon HaKodesh, there is a tremendous difference between "ito" (with him) and "imo" (with him). To walk im means with the very same intent, toward the very same objective, on terms of complete parity. To walk et means not in complete parity, but rather each with his own distinct goal: we share the road, but we do not share the ultimate purpose. I can walk with you (itkha) to Jerusalem, but I am heading to the mall while you are heading to King George Street. I walked with you (itkha). But if I walked with you (immakh) to a wedding, it means both of us went for the exact same purpose, to bring joy to a bride and groom.
And now notice how everything becomes clear. "You shall not go with them (immahem); you shall not curse the people" - to go with them in that same spirit, with the objective of cursing, I do not permit under any circumstance. And when he asks again, he is told, "Rise up, go with them (itam)" - the Creator of the world did not change His mind at all. He stands firmly by His initial position that Bilam must not go with them in purpose (immahem); rather, if your wish is to go alongside them (itam), without sharing their objective, to that I agree: "but only the word that I speak to you, that shall you do." And what happened in reality? "And he went with (im) the princes of Moab." Did he do what he was told? No. If so, how could we expect God's wrath not to flare? "And God's wrath flared because he was going" - meaning, he was going immahem, in full alignment with them, and not itam, merely traveling alongside them.
Only at the very end, after Bilam persists, does the angel tell him, "Go with (im) the men" - and this is the only place where a shift occurs. Rashi explains: Along the path a person wishes to walk, he is led. I told you no, yet you insist on going "with" (im)? Go "with" (im), but you will see that ultimately you will lose. And that is indeed what happens: "And Bilam went with (im) the princes of Balak."
Now let us return to the exposition of Chazal that we examined, and notice how precise the words are. Had the Torah said "for it is good for him itach" (with you), one might have understood: I will provide for myself as I wish, and for the servant I will arrange all sorts of second-hand castoffs, just so he has a place to sleep. But the Torah says "for it is good for him immach" (with you), and "im" denotes complete equality. Therefore, you may not drink aged wine while he drinks new wine; you may not eat fine white bread while he eats coarse bread; you may not sleep on mattresses while he sleeps on straw. The entire derashah hinges on this single word.
And further in the Gemara there: "If he loves his master but his master does not love him, his ear is not pierced, as it is stated: 'For it is good for him with you [immach].'" Another derashah is brought there as well: Rabbi Yochanan said, from where do we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, forgave Saul for that iniquity of consulting a necromancer? As it is stated:
מָחָר אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ עִמִּי - "Tomorrow, you and your sons shall be with me"
Samuel said this to Saul through the necromancer. And Chazal expounded: "With me" [immi] - in my compartment, in my heavenly realm. For "im" signifies absolute equality; the two of us together in the very same realm. The Holy One, blessed be He, forgave Saul both for this sin, as well as for failing to eradicate Amalek and for not offering the sacrifice at its appointed time, and, with God's help, we will address this further on.
Let us cite a verse where Scripture explicitly alternates between "im" and "et" according to the principle we have established:
וַיְמַהֵר שִׁמְעִי בֶן גֵּרָא בֶּן הַיְמִינִי אֲשֶׁר מִבַּחוּרִים וַיֵּרֶד עִם אִישׁ יְהוּדָה לִקְרַאת הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִד, וְאֶלֶף אִישׁ עִמּוֹ מִבִּנְיָמִן, וְצִיבָא נַעַר בֵּית שָׁאוּל וַחֲמֵשֶׁת עָשָׂר בָּנָיו וְעֶשְׂרִים עֲבָדָיו אִתּוֹ וְצָלְחוּ הַיַּרְדֵּן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ - "Shimei son of Gera, the Benjamite from Bachurim, hurried and descended with [im] the men of Judah to meet King David. And there were a thousand men from Benjamin with him [immo], and Ziba the servant of the house of Saul, along with his fifteen sons and his twenty servants, were with him [itto], and they crossed the Jordan before the king."
Shimei son of Gera was a man of stature, and the men of Judah were men of stature, and the thousand from Benjamin were likewise men of stature; therefore, the text uses "im" and "immo." But regarding Ziba, the servant of the house of Saul, his sons, and his servants: when a servant accompanies you, he does not walk "immach" but "itach," as there is a disparity in rank. Thus the verse writes "itto."
וְאֶת אַבְשָׁלוֹם הָלְכוּ מָאתַיִם אִישׁ מִירוּשָׁלַיִם קְרֻאִים וְהֹלְכִים לְתֻמָּם וְלֹא יָדְעוּ כָּל דָּבָר - "And with [ve-et] Absalom went two hundred men from Jerusalem who were invited; they went in their innocence, and knew nothing at all."
Absalom, who rebelled against his father David, took two hundred men along to assist him; however, those two hundred had no idea they were going to rebel. The prince told them to accompany him, and they came along in their innocence, suspecting nothing. "Im Avshalom" would have signified full partnership in the objective - to rebel. But they did not go im Absalom; they went et Absalom. Anyone who examines Tanach systematically will see this distinction again and again. Thus, once you know the code and understand the language, everything becomes clear. When the code is unknown, one stands puzzled, wondering why Scripture shifts its terminology and why Chazal derive an exposition that seems absent from the plain text.
Here is another example, from recent weekly Torah portions. Avraham asks Eliezer to go and bring a bride for Yitzchak, and Eliezer asks an innocent question:
אוּלַי לֹא תֹאבֶה הָאִשָּׁה לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרַי אֶל הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, הֶהָשֵׁב אָשִׁיב אֶת בִּנְךָ אֶל הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יָצָאתָ מִשָּׁם - "Perhaps the woman will not wish to follow me to this land; shall I return your son to the land from which you came?"
On the surface, this is a practical question: I will try to persuade her, and she will say that Charan suits her better than the Land of Israel; what should I do? Yet on this, the Midrash in Bereishit Rabbah offers an exposition that almost seems slanderous: He said, "Perhaps she will not wish," so that he might give him his daughter. He replied: You are cursed, and I am blessed, and the cursed does not cleave to the blessed. In other words, Eliezer had an ulterior motive: he had a daughter, Avraham was known to be very wealthy, and if that woman refuses to come, perhaps my daughter will be given to Yitzchak after all. And Avraham answers him: No, you descend from Canaan, and regarding Canaan it is said, "Cursed is Canaan," while my son is blessed, and the cursed does not cleave to the blessed. And once again the question arises: Where did Chazal derive that Eliezer intended to give his daughter to Yitzchak, and that Avraham objected? Outwardly, there is no hint of this in the text.
Let us consider the difference between ulai ("perhaps") and pen ("lest"). Ulai: "Please come to my maidservant, perhaps I will be built up through her"; "Perhaps there are fifty righteous people within the city"; "Perhaps I can atone for your sin"; "Perhaps I will be able to fight him and drive him out"; "Perhaps Hashem will happen to meet me." In contrast, pen, which appears in Scripture 128 times (I did not count them myself; the software does it easily): "Lest he reach out his hand and take also from the Tree of Life"; "Lest we be scattered across the face of the entire earth"; "Lest you perish in the iniquity of the city"; "Lest you return my son there"; "Lest he come and strike me down, mother with children."
The difference is simple: ulai expresses something one hopes will occur, in the sense of "if only" or "would that." Pen is always something one wants to avoid, Heaven forbid that such a thing should happen. And this is completely consistent: would that I be built up through her; would that there be fifty righteous men; would that I may atone; would that I could fight him. Conversely: let us banish man from the Garden of Eden lest he reach out his hand and live forever; lest we be scattered; lest you perish.
Now let us examine Eliezer's words according to this principle. "Ulai - perhaps the woman will not wish to follow me" means: would that she not be willing! Could such a thing be? Avraham trusted him implicitly, as it is written that he placed all that he had into his hands, and sent him to take a wife for his son. Was there anyone more loyal than he? Yet the term ulai reveals that he hoped she would not consent. Chazal come and explain why: because he had a daughter, and he wished that his daughter would marry Yitzchak, and thereby inherit all of Avraham's wealth.
There is also an additional source for this exposition. When Eliezer recounts to Lavan and his family what Avraham told him, it says: "And I said to my master, ulai - perhaps the woman will not follow me." Note the spelling: here it is written deficiently (without a vav). And how can that deficient spelling be read if we disregard the vocalization? Elai - "to me." That is to say: perhaps the woman will not follow me, and then ultimately you, Avraham, will come elai, to me, for I have a daughter. Once again, you see that Chazal's teachings were derived directly from the text itself. When you read accurately and know how to distinguish between ulai and pen, you possess the key to the source of the Midrash. (There are two apparent challenges to this rule, and both have answers, but we will not delve into them here due to time constraints.)
וַיִּהְיוּ כָּל יְמֵי אָדָם אֲשֶׁר חַי תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וַיָּמֹת - "And all the days of Adam that he lived were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died"
וְאֵלֶּה יְמֵי שְׁנֵי חַיֵּי אַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר חָי מְאַת שָׁנָה וְשִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְחָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים - "And these are the days of the years of Avraham's life that he lived: one hundred and seventy-five years"
Adam HaRishon lived 930 years, and Avraham lived 175, certainly a respectable number. Chazal taught regarding Adam HaRishon: The Holy One, blessed be He, passed all the generations before him, showing him David, for whom only three hours of life were decreed. Adam fell and said before Him: Master of the Universe, is there no remedy for this? He replied: Such is what arose in My thought. Adam asked Him: How many are the days of the years of my life? Meaning, how long am I destined to live? He said: One thousand years. Adam asked: Is gift-giving permitted in Heaven? Is it customary to give gifts? He answered: Yes. Adam said: Let seventy years of my life be given to this one. And according to the Kabbalists, David is a reincarnation of Adam HaRishon, which is why the word "Adam" (ADM) is an acronym for Adam, David, Mashiach; and when the Mashiach comes, the sin of Adam HaRishon will be rectified, but that is a lecture in its own right on reincarnations.
And concerning Avraham, they expounded: Rabbi Yehudah in the name of Rabbi Aibu, Rabbi Pinchas in the name of Rabbi Levi, and the Rabbis in the name of Rabbi Simon: You find that Avraham lived 175 years and Yitzchak lived 180. Why did Yitzchak live longer than his father? Rather, Avraham died with his days shortened, five years fewer, because Eisav committed two sins, and the Holy One, blessed be He, said: Did I not promise Avraham a good old age? It is better that he depart in peace; that is what is written, "For Your kindness is better than life." Thus, Avraham was destined to live 180 years, but five years were deducted so that he would not witness his grandson turning to wicked ways.
And again: where is this written? It is written that Adam lived nine hundred and thirty years and died, and it is written that Avraham lived one hundred and seventy-five years. Who told you that they were supposed to live longer? Rather, let us examine the language carefully. Notice: the words "which he lived" (asher chai) are superfluous. It could have written: "And all the days of Adam were nine hundred and thirty years, and he died," and it could have written: "And these are the days of the years of the life of Avraham, one hundred and seventy-five years."
And know a fundamental principle: if Tanakh can express something in two words, it will never express it in three. And if it expressed it in three, it is a sign that the additional word comes to teach something. This is called the principle of minimalism. The Author of the Book was extremely precise, concise, literally sparing with words, and did not write a single superfluous word. The fool multiplies words, prattles and speaks at length, but the wise person counts his words, and a fence for wisdom is silence. And when the Torah's Author elaborates, I must understand why He elaborated and what was meant to be gained by it.
Therefore, "And all the days of Adam which he lived" means: what he actually lived. That is, he was supposed to live longer, but all the days he actually lived were nine hundred and thirty. And likewise, "And these are the days of the years of Avraham's life which he lived": he was supposed to live longer, and this is what he lived in actuality. Thus we have learned from the text itself that he was meant to live longer.
And how long was Adam supposed to live? Here another principle joins in. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Adam HaRishon, "For on the day that you eat of it you shall surely die," yet in practice he did not die on that day, but lived nine hundred and thirty years. Did the command of the Creator of the universe fail to come to pass? Chazal say, it is stated:
כִּי אֶלֶף שָׁנִים בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּיוֹם אֶתְמוֹל כִּי יַעֲבֹר וְאַשְׁמוּרָה בַלָּיְלָה - "For a thousand years in Your eyes are like yesterday when it passes, and like a watch in the night"
With the Holy One, blessed be He, a day is a thousand years, and two days are two thousand years. By the way, the story is told of someone who met an angel and asked him: "How long is a second in Heaven?" He answered: "With us, a second is a million years." He asked: "And how much is a shekel in Heaven?" He answered: "A million shekels." He said: "Do me a favor, give me a shekel." The angel replied: "No problem, wait a second." In any case, "on the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" meant that he was supposed to live a thousand years. Since he lived nine hundred and thirty, seventy years are missing, which were given to someone else. And when we examine the verses to see who received those seventy years, we find King David. Once again you see that in order to grasp the derashah of Chazal, you must study the language of Scripture and its mode of expression, and then you discover that the derashah is embedded within the text itself.
וַיְהִי בַיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיָּמָת מֶלֶךְ מִצְרַיִם, וַיֵּאָנְחוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעֲבֹדָה וַיִּזְעָקוּ, וַתַּעַל שַׁוְעָתָם אֶל הָאֱלֹהִים מִן הָעֲבֹדָה - "And it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned because of the servitude and they cried out, and their cry rose up to God because of the servitude"
בִּשְׁנַת מוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ עֻזִּיָּהוּ וָאֶרְאֶה אֶת ה' יֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא רָם וְנִשָּׂא וְשׁוּלָיו מְלֵאִים אֶת הַהֵיכָל - "In the year of the death of King Uzziah, I saw the Lord sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and His train filled the Temple"
We read "and he died" and understand that he died, because we are not familiar with the language of Tanakh. But Chazal say: "And the king of Egypt died" means that he was afflicted with tzara'at, and a metzora is considered dead. And likewise regarding Uzziah: why did Scripture refer to him as dead? Because he was afflicted with tzara'at. Seemingly, why depart from the plain meaning of the verse? It says he died, so he died! What is wrong with understanding the verse as it is?
First of all, what does it mean that "a metzora is considered dead"? A dead person is someone disconnected from life, and the metzora is likewise disconnected: he is sent outside the camp, people do not approach him, tzara'at is contagious and dangerous, his entire body is covered in sores, a truly terrible and awful condition. Until about fifty years ago there was a leper hospital in Jerusalem, and people would not go near it.
Rav Aryeh Levin, known as the "Father of the Prisoners," was among the few who would go there to encourage the patients, speak with them, and give them strength. He was the rabbi of the underground prisoners during the British Mandate, those fighters imprisoned in Acre Prison, and he was the father-in-law of Rav Elyashiv. It is told that once, in the middle of the funeral of one of the Gedolei Yisrael, someone saw him going to buy a potted plant. The man wondered: What is this? The funeral of a great sage, and he goes right now to buy a potted plant? But he decided to ask him - and rightly so, for Chazal said that when you see someone do something baffling, ask him, because it is far worse to keep it to yourself. When you keep it to yourself, you slide into your own interpretations: an insensitive person, everyone is mourning and he goes to buy a potted plant, couldn't it wait? Usually, you will judge him unfavorably. Whereas if you ask, it is very likely that he will offer an explanation that sets your mind at ease.
And indeed, the man approached and asked: "Honored Rabbi, I saw that the Rabbi was buying a flowerpot in the middle of a funeral. What was that all about?" The Rabbi said to him: "It is good that you asked. You should know that I was caring for a person in the leper hospital in Jerusalem, and I gave him tefillin to put on. Now, that person passed away today. And do you know what they do? All the clothes and everything the lepers touched, they burn it all. They wanted to take the tefillin he put on and burn them too, and it is a severe prohibition to burn sacred objects. I told them that we must find another solution, and under no circumstances may they be burned. They said to me: 'We are willing to make a special concession: bring a flowerpot, and we will bury the tefillin inside it, so no one will be able to touch them, and we will not have to burn them.' And I had to bring the flowerpot by twelve o'clock." Rav Aryeh Levin said: "I did not plan the passing of that great Torah scholar; he passed away right then and I had to run to the funeral, but if I did not bring a flowerpot by twelve o'clock, they would burn all his belongings there. I ran and brought the flowerpot, they buried the tefillin in it, and thus the tefillin were saved from being burned." That was Rav Aryeh Levin. Incidentally, it is highly recommended to read the book published in his memory, "A Tzaddik in Our Time" (Ish Tzaddik Hayah), a book about a truly righteous and exceptional individual.
To return to our subject: The source for the principle that a metzora is considered as dead is found in the episode of Miriam, who spoke lashon hara about Moshe: "And the cloud departed from over the tent, and behold, Miriam was stricken with tzara'at, white as snow; and Aharon turned to Miriam, and behold, she was stricken with tzara'at." And Aharon says to Moshe:
בִּי אֲדֹנִי אַל נָא תָשֵׁת עָלֵינוּ חַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר נוֹאַלְנוּ וַאֲשֶׁר חָטָאנוּ, אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת אֲשֶׁר בְּצֵאתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם אִמּוֹ וַיֵּאָכֵל חֲצִי בְשָׂרוֹ - "Please, my lord, do not lay sin upon us, for we have acted foolishly and we have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, who came out of his mother's womb with half his flesh consumed."
Thus we see that a metzora is considered as dead. Yet one must still ask: While "died" can be interpreted as referring to a metzora, it can also be interpreted literally, as actual death. From where did Chazal determine that here it refers to tzara'at?
To answer this, let us examine a verse in Kohelet: "No man has authority over the wind to restrain the wind, and there is no authority on the day of death, and there is no furlough in war, neither shall wickedness deliver its masters." We will not delve into the entire verse, but "there is no authority on the day of death" means that a person who has died is no longer considered a king; one cannot call him a king. Rabbi Levi said: Nearly fifty-two times it is written "King David," but once he was about to die, it is written, "And the days of David drew near to die." Where is the title "king"? In death there is no king, because "there is no authority on the day of death."
Now return to the verse: "And the king of Egypt died." If he actually died, how could Scripture call him "the king of Egypt"? It should have written, "And Pharaoh died." The very fact that he is still called a king teaches that he was alive. And if he was alive, how can the Torah say of him "and he died"? Rather, there is a condition in which a person is considered dead while still alive, and that is a metzora. Thus, Chazal's exposition is written in Scripture itself, if only one possesses the proper index to understand the text.
And so it is with Uzziah: "In the year of the death of King Uzziah." If he died, how is he called "the King"? After all, with David, when he was about to die, he was not called king, but rather "And the days of David drew near to die." And with Uzziah, the matter is even clearer, as Scripture explicitly states that tzara'at erupted on his forehead. Notice, by contrast: "And David slept with his fathers and was buried in the city of David," and it does not say "King David." Similarly, "And Chizkiyahu slept with his fathers," not "King Chizkiyahu." When a person is dead, he no longer holds the status of king.
From everything we have seen, we have learned that understanding the verses is no simple matter. It is not something you merely read and imagine you have understood; on the contrary, familiarity with modern Hebrew can sometimes make it harder for us, because we think we understand when in truth we do not. "Im" versus "et" unlocked for us the parashah of Bil'am, the law of the Hebrew servant, and Hashem's forgiveness of Shaul; "ulai" versus "pen" unlocked for us Chazal's exposition on Eliezer and his daughter; the principle of minimalism and the superfluous phrase "which he lived" unlocked the years of Adam HaRishon and Avraham; and the precision that "there is no authority on the day of death" unlocked "and the king of Egypt died" and "the death of King Uzziah." When you learn the language of Tanach and realize that every single word comes to convey a specific meaning, you view Tanach through entirely different lenses: the comprehension is different, the depth is different, and grasping the subtle nuances conveyed by the Author through shifts in wording and meaning transforms the study of Tanach into an entirely different experience from anything we experienced in school. May it be His will that we continue in these lessons, and with God's help, next week we will begin the Book of Yehoshua.