1) (Vayikra 13:19) ("and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth or a reddish-white bahereth, then it shall be shown to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:20) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It is a plague-spot of leprosy; it has blossomed in the boil. (Vayikra 13:21) And if the Cohein see it, and, behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is dim, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for seven days.") "and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth": The boil must precede the se'eth, and not the se'eth, the boil. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: It was called "its place" (that of the bahereth) before it (the boil) arrived there. 2) How (is the verse to be understood)? There was (a se'eth) in the skin of the flesh before the arrival of the boil (in that place). R. Eliezer b. Yaakov ruled it (a se'eth that preceded the boil) tamei, and the sages ruled it tahor. 3) "a white se'eth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah plain (i.e., without intermixture of red). "a reddish-white bahereth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. I might think that the se'eth confers tumah only plain (white) and the bahereth confers tumah only intermixed. Whence do I derive that what applies to se'eth (plain) applies to bahereth, and what applies to bahereth (intermixed) applies to se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:20) It is a plague-spot of leprosy" (connoting interchangeability). 4) (Vayikra 13:20) "its appearance is lower": This tells me (that it is tamei) only if its appearance is lower. Whence do I derive for inclusion (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher? From (Vayikra 13:21) "and it is not lower than the skin," (which indicates that "lower than the skin" is not a categorical requirement for tumah). "it has blossomed in the boil": but not in the skin of the flesh (outside of the boil). I might think that (to become tamei) it does not spread in the skin of the flesh, but it does spread in the skin of the burn (near the boil); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:23) "And if in its place the bahereth stands — (if) it has not spread." In its place (in the boil) it spreads, (to become tamei); it does not spread in the skin of the flesh or in the skin of the burn. 5) (Vayikra 13:21) "And if the Cohein see it" — all in one sighting. "and, behold, there is no white hair in it" — not in it (the boil), but not in a strand projecting from it (i.e., if there were white hair in the strand, it is tahor). I might think (that the strand was not considered part of the boil) even if there were in it the breadth of two hairs; it is, therefore, written ([Vayikra 13:26] in respect to a burn) "and, behold, there is not in the bahereth white hair" (connoting that any significant projection [i.e., the breadth of two hairs] is considered part of the bahereth). 6) (Vayikra 13:22) ("And if it spreads, spreads, in the skin, the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is plague.") "spreads, spreads, in the skin": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:27) "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day, if it spreads, spreads, in the skin," I might think that a spreading renders him unclean only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive the same for the eighth, ninth, and tenth day? From (the redundant) "spread, spread." 7) If he were confirmed through white hair, and the white hair disappeared and then returned; and, similarly, through a spreading: at first inspection, at the end of a week, after exemption — where he was confirmed through the spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and similarly, through white hair, at the end of the first or the second week, or after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) "and if it spreads, spreads." 8) (Vayikra 13:22) "the Cohein shall declare him tamei": He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela, and we do not know in which one it spread. Whether (two plague-spots) in one man or one (plague-spot) in (each of) two men, he is tahor. R. Akiva said: In one man, he is tamei, (it being certain that at least one of the spots spread.) They countered: But is it not written "The Cohein shall declare him tamei"? — He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt! 9) (Vayikra 13:23) ("And if the bahereth remains in its place — if it has not spread — then it is the peel of the boil, and the Cohein shall declare him tahor.") (lit.) "And if under it the bahereth stands — if it has not spread." It spreads (for purposes of conferring tumah) to the place under it (i.e., the boil). It does not spread (for such purposes) to the skin of the flesh (around it) or to the skin of a burn (alongside it). "the peel": Its place must be compact and distinct. "the Cohein shall declare him tahor": He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela and more. Both are tamei. Even if they recede to a sela in both, they are both tamei — until they recede to the size of a garis. In this connection it is written "and the Cohein shall declare him tahor." He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt.
Sifra Tazria Negaim Section 4
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.