תכלם שבעת ימים. פרש"י ק"ו לשכינה י"ד יום ומקשים העולם היכן נמצא שיעור זה די"ד יום וי"ל דמן הדין הוא במסכת נדה פרק המפלת ת"ר שלשה שותפין יש באדם הקב"ה אביו ואמו אביו מזריע לובן שממנו גידים ועצמו' וצפרנים ומוח שבראש ולובן שבעינים הרי ה' מן האב ואמו מזרעת אודם שממנו דם ובשר וכו' הקב"ה מטיל בו רוח ונשמה וקלסתר פנים ודעת ובינה והשכל וראית העינים ושמיעת האזנים ודבור שפתים והלוך רגלים. הרי עשרה דברים מאת הקב"ה כפלים מאביו ולכך נקט בנזיפה דהכא י"ד שהוא כפלים משבעה מאביה אלא דיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון ולא תכלם כי אם שבעה וקשיא להר' בכור שור אי אמרינן בכל חמור שלמד מן הקל שנוסף כפי מה שהוא חמור ממנו וא"ת ק"ו לשכינה י"ד היינו לעולם שהרי בסוף הסגר שהוא בי"ד אם לא נתרפא המצורע הוא מחליט לעולם. ואו' ה"ר ברוך בר יצחק דבשני הסגרים אין בהם יותר מי"ג יום דיום שביעי עולה לכאן ולכאן. ומיהו תימא דמנא לן דמנזיפה דאביה תכלם שבעת ימים דלפום ריהטא דקרא משמע דפשוט הוא ממקום אחר דמאביה תכלם שבעת ימים. וי"ל דמנזיפה דאביה היא במנודה ומנודה כאבל שנוהג שבעה. ועדיין קשה דז' דאבל לא מצינו בקרא דאינו אלא מדרבנן ועוד מאי קאמר דאביה ירוק ירק בפניה והלא לא היה חי באותה שעה אמנם נ"ל דמזה לא קשיא כלל דהכי בעי למימר אלו חי וירוק ירק בפניה. ומ"מ יש מתרצים שאביה נזף בה במצרים בלידת משה שטפחה אביה על ראשה כשהושלך ביאור ואמר לה בתי היאך נבואתך הלא תכלם שבעת ימים דהתם כתיב ותתצב אחותו מרחוק מה גבי מצורע ז' אף כאן שבעה. אמנם לא ידעתי היכן כתיב רחוק במצורע אם לא משום דכתיב וישב מחוץ לאהלו שבעת ימים ולשון הרחקה הוא ומהאי קרא דתכלם שבעת ימים מוכח במועד קטן בפרק ואלו מגלחין דנזיפה דרבנן הוי שבעת ימים: תכלם שבעת ימים, “should she not be locked up for seven days?” According to Rashi, we are dealing here with a lesson in logic. If for insulting a parent the penalty is seven days of being ostracised, is it not logical that for insulting G–d the penalty must be at least ostracism for fourteen days?” G–d shows Moses that He is very considerate of Miriam by decreeing only seven days of such ostracism. Rashi raises the question that the so-called logic here is halachically incorrect, as we have a rule that this type of logic may not be applied to something being in excess of the basis for the comparison. (Compare Talmud, tractate Niddah folio 31) The sages say that man was created by three partners, G–d, his father, and his mother. The father supplies the semen, which later on forms bones and tendons, nails, brain and the eyes. This makes five parts. The mother supplies the blood, and the material forming the flesh. G–d provides the spirit and the soul, as well as the appearance of the face, eyesight, sense of hearing, ability to formulate thoughts into words, the lips, and the ability of the legs to walk. In other words, G–d makes ten contributions, twice as many as the father. This is why the number 14 appears here. It is not appropriate therefore that the punishment for Miriam, only a human being, should symbolise something Divine, but seven days of ostracism suffice, as they represent the part of father and mother in the development of the human being. Rabbi B’chor Shor raises the question that if everything that is serious is derived from something that is less serious, the kal vachomer principle, and that therefore the number 14 would symbolise a type of infinity, [like G–d. Ed] something that has no end, this would mean that a person stricken with tzoraat, who is examined at weekly intervals by the priest to determine the progress of the disease, would be condemned to carry that disease till he dies if it had not healed after the priest’s second inspection. Rabbi Baruch ben Yitzchok disagrees, saying that the two inspections by the priest cover a period of only thirteen days, as the seventh day is considered as belonging both to the first week and the second week. The difficulty with this interpretation is that we have no source for knowing that a father’s curse is limited to seven days, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse. From where did the Torah consider this as axiomatic? Perhaps the number seven as the length for such negative phenomena is based on the length a woman experiences ostracism during her menses. The period of active mourning for close relative is also limited to seven days. Still, this seven day mourning period is only of Rabbinic origin, not decreed by the Torah. Besides, another question, whence do we know that a father will spit in his daughter’s face as an indication of his displeasure with her behaviour, as seems to be taken for granted in our verse? Miriam’s father was not even alive anymore at that time! Upon reflection, I think there is no problem at all. The Torah simply posits that if her father had still been alive, and she had caused him great displeasure this is how he would have reacted. At any rate, there are sages who answer this problem by referring to Miriam’s father’s displeasure at the time of Moses’ birth at which time her father had hit her lightly on the head, asking her what had become of her prophecy, now that she had a brother who had to be drowned in the Nile? (Compare Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 13) That incident resulted in her being ostracised for a period of seven days as we derive Exodus 2,4, from the words: ותתצב מרחוק. “she had to stand at a distance.” Just as a person stricken with tzoraat has to wait for seven days before the priest could declare him as healed, so the minimum period such ostracism lasts is seven days. As a result, even after having been declared healed, the formerly afflicted person has to wait for a period of seven days before he can rejoin the people as we read in Leviticus 14,8. This is also the verse that the Talmud based itself on above, as well as the Talmud in tractate Moed Katan folio 16.