1) (Vayikra 13:32) ("And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day, and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin") "on the seventh": I might think either by day or at night (before the seventh day); it is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night. 2) For I might think that the skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through four "appearances," requires daylight, but nethakim, which do not confer tumah through four appearances, do not require daylight; it must, therefore, be written (also in respect to nethakim) "in the daytime," and not at night. 3) "and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it": R. Yehudah says: It does not say "it (the nethek) did not turn the hair yellow in it," but "and there was no yellow hair in it," which implies that if there was yellow hair there (even) before the (advent of the) nethek, it is tamei. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It does not say: "There was no thin yellow hair in it," but "there was no yellow hair in it" — even a long one. "and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin": (its appearance is the determining factor) and not its (actual) substance. 4) (Vayikra 13:33) ("Then he shall be shaved, but the nethek he shall not shave. And the Cohein shall quarantine the nethek a second seven days.") "Then he shall be shaved": by any man (and not necessarily a Cohein). Because we find the last shaving (on the day of his cleansing [Vayikra 14:9] to be by a Cohein, I might think that this, too, must be by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any man. 5) "Then he shall be shaved": by any man. Because we find the last shaving to be by a razor. I might think that this, too, must be by a razor; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any instrument. 6) "Then he shall be shaved": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head," I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — even if he was afflicted. 7) I might think that just as the shaving of the nega overrides the (prohibition against) shaving the Nazirite when it (the nega) is a certainty, so (the mitzvah of) shaving the Nazirite (at the completion of the days of his Naziritism) overrides the prohibition against shaving the nethek when it (the completion of the Nazirite period) is a certainty; it is, therefore, written (of this contingency) "but the nethek he shall not shave." Now what (hair) is there in the nethek that it need be written "but the nethek he shall not shave"? The meaning must be, then: "Around the nethek he shall not shave." How so? He shaves outside of it and leaves (a border of hair) two hairs (thick) around it, so that it will be discernible if the nethek spreads. (And it is this hair border that the verse is referring to.) And whence is it derived that one who tears signs of tumah (yellow hairs) from the midst of his nega transgresses a negative commandment? From "but the nethek (i.e., anything in it) he shall not shave" (i.e., depilate). 8) "and he shall wash his clothes": not to confer tumah on (his) couch or seat or (on the objects in a house) by entering (it). "and he is clean": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. "and he shall wash his clothes and he shall be clean": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:35) "And if the nethek shall spread … he is tamei." 9) "And if the nethek shall spread … after his cleansing": This tells me of (his status) after his exemption. Whence do I derive that the same applies also at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week? From (the redundant) "spread, spread." 10) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through yellow hair, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) a spreading in the beginning (before the quarantine), at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if the nethek shall spread." Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed through a spreading, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) yellow hair, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, and after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if spread it shall spread." 11) And whence is it derived that yellow hair which returns after the exemption is tamei? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out (the status of) the yellow hair; (he is tamei.") 12) And whence is it derived that yellow hair confers tumah without a spreading and a spreading confers tumah without yellow hair? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out the yellow hair; he is tamei." 13) And whence is it derived that in instances of nethakim a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined, and that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed? From "the Cohein shall not 'seek out' (by recourse to the above) the yellow hair — he is (already) tamei." 14) (Vayikra 13:37) ("And if in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it, then the nethek has been healed; he is clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.") "And if in his eyes": This tells me only of his (the Cohein's) own eyes. Whence do I derive for inclusion the eyes of his son or the eyes of his disciple? From "And if in his eyes" (and not necessarily the Cohein's eyes) the nethek has remained the same. "hair": the minimum of hair — two. "black": This tells me only of black hair. Whence do I derive the same for green or red hair? From "and hair." "sprouted in it": though it not be surrounded within it. This tells me only of (hair) remaining in the beginning (viz. Vayikra 13:31) and sprouting in the end. Whence do I derive the same for sprouting in the beginning and remaining in the end? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) "and hair" (Vayikra 13:31) - "and hair" (Vayikra 13:37). 15) "the nethek has been healed": If one had a nethek with yellow hair in it, he is tamei. If black hair arose in it, he is tahor. Even if the black hair leaves it, he remains tahor. R. Shimon says: Any yellow hair which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: Any nethek which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again. 17) "he is clean": Hillel says: This (R. Shimon's axiom above) does not hold with a nethek which arose within a nethek (after the latter had been declared tahor), it being written "he (is clean") — Only healing effects taharah. "he is clean": I might think he can get up and leave; it is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall declare him clean." If that (alone were written), I might think that if a Cohein (erroneously) declared one who is tamei to be tahor, he is clean. It is, therefore, written "clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean." (i.e., the declaration is valid only if he is really clean.) And it is in order to be enlightened on this, that Hillel went up from Bavel (to Eretz Yisrael), to consult Shemayah and Avtalyon.
Sifra Tazria Negaim Chapter 9
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.