1) (Vayikra 13:18) "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil" — (Vayikra 13:24) "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire": This (i.e., the fact that boil and burn are discussed independently and not jointly) teaches us that boil and burn do not combine with each other. 2) Not only if he suffered (one of) them and he does not know which, (in which instance the Cohein cannot declare him tamei, their not being interchangeable), but even a (known) half- garis of boil and half-garis of burn cannot combine with each other. 3) (Vayikra 13:24) "a burn by fire": I might think that only a "rebellious" (i.e., unhealed) burn were intended. It is, therefore, written "and the healthy flesh of the burn." (If the latter alone were written,) I might think that it must form a scab; it is, therefore, written "a burn by fire." How is this to be reconciled? It healed and did not heal (i.e., it formed a peel and not a scab) And thus is it written below (Vayikra 13:28) "it is the peel of the burn" — until it forms a membrane, like a garlic peel. 4) ("a burn by fire") This tells me only of his being burned by fire. Whence do I derive the same for (his being burned by) a coal, ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum, and anything else that comes from a flame? From "burn" ("a burn by fire") - "burn ("flesh of the burn") for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn (which was sustained) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of) a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a burn sustained by) a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn sustained by a minor) before he was born? From "burn" - "burn," for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn which has room to spread. Whence do I derive the same for a burn which does not have room to spread? From "if there be in its skin" — even in all of it. This tells me only of part-burn, part-bahereth; part-burn, all bahereth; part-bahereth, all burn. Whence do I derive the same for all burn, all bahereth? From "in its skin" - "in its skin," for (extension of) inclusion. 5) (Vayikra 13:24) "a reddish-white bahereth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. And whence is it derived that it confers tumah plain (white)? From (Vayikra 13:24) "white." Whence is it derived that the other appearances are included? From "or white." 6) (Vayikra 13:26) "And if the Cohein see it," (all in one sighting). "and there is not in the bahereth white hair": As they have said: This includes (as being considered part of the burn) a strand, the breadth of two hairs, that projects from it. 7) "and it is not lower than the skin and it is dim": As they have said: This includes (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher. 8) (Vayikra 13:27) "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. If it has spread, spread, in the skin, etc." I might think that a spreading confers tumah only at the end of a week. Whence do I derive (that it does so) even after exemption? From (the redundant) "spread, spread." 9) 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 a spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and, similarly, through white hair, at the end of a week and after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) "if it has spread, spread." Why is "leprosy" written three times (in respect to "a burn," (once here and twice in 13:25)? "leprosy" — It requires the size of a garis (a Cilician bean); "leprosy" — to render what is stated in respect to a se'eth applicable to a bahereth, and what is stated in respect to a bahereth applicable to a se'eth; "leprosy" — to render what is stated in respect to a boil applicable to a burn, and what is stated in respect to a burn applicable to a boil. Why is "it" written three times (once here and twice in 13:25)? "it" — it (a burn, unlike a skin plague-spot) is not rendered tamei by the eruption of a michyah, at first inspection, at the end of a week (of quarantine), and after exemption. "it" — to exclude the spreading of bohak (white scurf) at the end of a week or after exemption. "it" — it has no fifth shade (aside from the four indicated). (And a fourth possible derivation:) "it" — boil and burn do not combine with each other.
Sifra Tazria Negaim Chapter 7
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.