The spiritual ailment of tzaraas had an effect on one’s house, clothes, and/or body. In regards to tzaraas on clothes the Torah in the portion of Tazria states, “If there shall be a tzaraas affliction in a garment, in a woolen garment or a linen garment, or in the warp or the woof of the linen or the wool: or in leather or in anything fashioned of leather; and the affliction shall be deep green or deep red, in the garment or the leather, or the warp or the woof, or in any leather utensil: it is a tzaraas affliction, and it shall be shown to the kohen” (Vayikra 13:47-49).
The Sifra (162) discussing why the pasuk had to reiterate in detail about “in the garment…or the warp, or the woof, or in any leather utensil: it is a tzaraas affliction,” says, “It would be possible to think that only a garment that both wealthy and poor people wear can receive tzaraas. But a garment that a wealthy person would have but a poor person wouldn’t, or a poor person would have but a wealthy one wouldn’t, or if neither a wealthy or poor person would own, how do we know it can contract tzaraas? Therefore the Torah states, ‘it’s a tzaraas affliction, and it shall be shown to the kohen.’”
The Malbim, while explaining how the Sifra derives this from the pasuk, says: “that Chaza”l is explaining to us that we don’t care about what type of a person it is who owns the garment, whether rich or poor. Granted if the garment was small or thick it’s not befitting for a wealthy person, or if it was expensive it’s questionable whether it belongs to the poor person, or if the garment is fully worn out then it’s not useful to anyone, however the pasuk is informing us that if the garment turned by itself a deep green [or red] then it has a tzaraas affliction, without looking into who it should belong to.” (Click here for Hebrew text.)
When a person would bring his or her garment to the kohen to see if it had an affliction, why would we think to question who it belonged to, if he or she claimed it as his or hers? He or she is obviously not trying to steal anything; on the contrary, they were admitting they had done a wrongdoing and were trying to fix the problem. If the Torah would say any garment with a deep green or deep red hue might be tzaraas, and must be taken to a kohen for inspection, then wouldn’t that mean any garment?
It must be that people have automatic, preconceived notions that things should be universal, and if they aren’t universal for everyone, then rules and laws shouldn’t apply. However, the Torah is teaching us, and feels the need to teach us, that nothing is universal. There can be many different variables and different situations that are not easily discernable but must all be considered. Laws don’t have to only apply to clothing, which are worn by both the rich and the poor. It’s possible for clothes that only belong to the rich or the poor get tzaraas or even if somehow the poor got ahold of something expensive, that garment can receive tzaraas. Even if it is useless to anyone, they are all the same; there is no universal standard.