Sifra Tazria Negaim Chapter 15

¹1) (Vayikra 13:52) ("And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, of wool or of flax, on any article of skin in which the plague-spot will be; for it is blight-leprosy — it shall be burned in fire.") "And he shall burn, etc.": I might think that he should bring shearings of wool and stalks of flax and burn them along with it; it is, therefore, written "it shall be burned in fire" — nothing else need be burned along with it. ²2) If so, why is it written "of wool or of flax"? To exclude (from the requirement of burning) appendages (to the garment, which are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.) ³3) I would then exclude appendages of silk and of gold, whose kind (silk and gold) are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness, but I would not exclude (wool) of purple and crimson, whose kind, (wool) is subject to plague-spot uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written "in which the plague-spot will be found," i.e., which is subject to plague-spot (uncleanliness — to exclude dyed wool ["purple and crimson" above], which is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness). ⁴4) (Vayikra 13:53) "And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread in the garment, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin": This refers to the stationariness (omed) of the plague-spot, (and not to the non-appearance of a different plague-spot). (Vayikra 13:54) ("Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine it a second seven days.") "Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash": the command, by the Cohein; the washing, by any man. ⁵5) "and they shall wash … the plague-spot": I might think the plague-spot alone; it is, therefore, written "what contains the plague-spot." How so? Some of the adjoining material is washed with it. ⁶6) "and he shall quarantine it a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is included in the count — both before it and after it (i.e., the last of the first seven, and the first of the second seven.) ⁷7) (Vayikra 13:55) ("And the Cohein shall see, after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance, and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean. In fire shall you burn it; it is p'cheteth in its karachath or in its gabachath.") "after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean.": If it has not changed and not spread, it is tamei; but if it changed and did not spread, it should be examined as in the beginning. These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: It is tamei by reason of omed (viz. Vayikra 13:4 above). How, then, am I to understand "and, behold, it has not changed"? From any appearance that renders it subject to tumah (even if it changed from green to red). ⁸8) "pcheteth": all of it appearing to be indented. — But perhaps only second-degree (dimness) is intended! — "It" ("It is pcheteth") indicates that it is as it was before. How, then, am I to understand "pcheteth"? As connoting (all of) it appearing to be indented. ⁹9) "in its karachath": This refers to frayed (garments); "or in its gabachath": This refers to new (garments) — whence they ruled: sagus (a very thick cloak) on which a plague-spot appears — R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Until it appears in its weaving and its tufts. ¹⁰10) (Vayikra 13:56) "And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed": second-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to green), or third-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to neutral)? It is, therefore, written "and, behold, the plague-spot became dim" (i.e., even though it is dim, it is still called "plague-spot." — If "plague-spot," I might think that it retained its original appearance (but just changed color [e.g., from deep green to deep red]); it is, therefore, written "and, behold, it became dim." How so? (It changed from) first degree to second degree, and not to third degree.