1) (Vayikra 13:49) ("And it shall be, if the plague-spot is deep green or deep red in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is a plague-spot of leprosy, and it shall be shown to the Cohein.") Or perhaps just as (skin is likened to wool and) wool is from a small beast (a sheep), which is eaten, then skin, too, (to be subject to leprosy tumah) must be from a small beast, which is eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a small beast which is not eaten, a large beast which is eaten, a large beast which is not eaten … until I include the skins of sheratzim? From the repetition of "in the skin" (Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49). I might think that both dyed and undyed skins are subject to tumah. It is, therefore, written (twice, Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49) "garment." Just as "garment" connotes all white, so skins (to be subject to tumah) must be all white. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says "or (in the skin") includes the dyed. R. Shimon says: One verse says "in the garment," (connoting white); another says "in the skin" (connoting also colored). How are these to be reconciled? Colored by Heaven are subject to tumah; colored by man are not subject to tumah. 2) "if the plague-spot is yerakrak": I might think any shade of yarok (green); it is, therefore, written "yerakrak," the greenest of the green (i.e., deep green). "adamdam": I might think any shade of adom (red); it is, therefore, written "adamdam," the reddest of the red. "yerakrak or adamdam": We are hereby taught that they are not subject to tumah intermixed. I might think that just as they are not subject to tumah intermixed, they do not combine with each other (for the minimum size for tumah, a garis); it is, therefore, written "And it shall be" (connoting that they do combine). 3) "in the garment": and not in the nap. (If the plague-spot appears in the nap, it is tamei, but the garment is not.) "in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, (it is a plague-spot of leprosy"): What is the intent of this? I might think that "garment" indicates one that is appropriate for both a rich man and a pauper. Whence do I derive (as subject to tumah) one that is appropriate for a rich man but not for a pauper; for a pauper but not for a rich man, neither for a rich man nor for a pauper? From (the categorical) "it is a plague-spot of leprosy." "and it shall be shown to the Cohein": to include all (of the above instances). 4) "it is a plague-spot of leprosy": (making it subject to tumah if it is) the size of a garis. (Why is a special verse needed for this? There is (leprosy) tumah here, and there is (leprosy) tumah in skin of the flesh. Just as there, the (minimum) size is a garis, here, too, it is a garis. 5) But perhaps go in this direction: There is tumah here and there is tumah in houses. Just as there, the (minimum) size is two garisim, here, too, it is two garisim. 6) Let us see what it most resembles. We derive something that incurs tumah in two weeks from something which incurs tumah in two weeks, and this is not to be refuted by houses, which incur tumah in three weeks. But perhaps go in this direction: We derive something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red from something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red, and this is not to be refuted by skin of the flesh, which does not incur tumah with deep green and deep red; it is, therefore, written "it is a plague-spot of leprosy." 7) (Vayikra 13:50) "And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.": This is the first quarantine. 8) (Vayikra 13:51) ("And he shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day. If the plague-spot has spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, (whatever work the skin is made for), the plague-spot is "blight-leprosy; it is unclean.") "on the seventh": I might think, seven days, either by day or by night. It is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night. 9) "if the plague-spot has spread": This refers to a spreading adjacent (to the plague-spot), any amount (of spreading in this instance conferring tumah). And whence do we include (as conferring tumah a spreading which is) distant (from the plague-spot)? From "in the garment" (i.e., anywhere in the garment.)( I might think that any amount (of such a distant spreading would confer tumah.) It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here "plague-spot," and elsewhere (in respect to flesh leprosy) "plague-spot." Just as the plague-spot there must be (a minimum of) a garis, so, the plague-spot here must be (a minimum of) a garis. 10) In sum: An adjacent spreading (confers tumah) in any amount; a distant spreading, with (the size of) a garis; a recurring spreading (i.e., a reappearance after the plague-spot has been cut out of the garment), with a garis. 11) "blight leprosy": Invest it with a blight and derive no benefit from it. This tells me only of a confirmed plague-spot. Whence do I derive the same for a quarantined plague-spot? From (the redundant) "blight-leprosy." If so, then just as with a confirmed garment, if he (cut it into pieces smaller than the minimum size for tumah and) made sponges of them, they remain tamei, and no benefit may be derived from them, so (the same rule should apply to) a quarantined garment. It is, therefore, written "the plague-spot is blight-leprosy; it is unclean," and not a confirmed garment (in the above instance).
Sifra Tazria Negaim Chapter 14
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.