1) (Vayikra 13:5) ("And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. And if the plague-spot appears as it did before, if it did not spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for a second seven days.") "on the seventh day": I might think either in the daytime or at night. It is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night. 2) I might think that all of the inspections of the day are kasher. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:12): "to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein." Just as with the Cohein — except when the light of his eyes has dimmed, so with the day — except when the light of the day has dimmed. 3) From here they ruled: Plague-spots are not inspected in the early morning or at twilight or inside the house or on a cloudy day, for then what is dull appears bright; and not at mid-day, for then what is bright appears dull. When are they inspected? On the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth hours. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: On the fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth hours. R. Yossi says: On the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth hours, but I accept the words of the great one (R. Yehudah). 4) "and if the plague-spot appears as it did before": For if the nega was bright and it dimmed, (it is as if it was never bright); if it was dim and it brightened, it is as if it never dimmed (and he must be quarantined again, for it is regarded as appearing as it did before [unless it changes to the extent that it leaves the category of "the four appearances," viz. Section 2:4]). "and the plague-spot has not spread": For if it contracted and it spread, (it is as if it never contracted); and if it spread and contracted, it is as if it never spread. "then the Cohein shall quarantine for a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is part of the count, both for what precedes (i.e., it is the last of the first seven) and for what follows (i.e., it is the first of the second seven). (Vayikra 13:6) ("And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again. If the plague-spot is dim, and the plague-spot has not spread on the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath (a kind of clean plague-spot). And he shall wash his clothes and he is clean.") "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died, a different Cohein sees him. 5) "If the plague-spot is dim": I might think below (the brightness of) the four appearances; it is, therefore, written "the plague-spot," i.e., it is still a plague-spot. If "the plague-spot" (alone were written), I might think, as its (original) appearance. It is, therefore, written "and, behold, it is dim." How so? It is dimmer than its original appearance, but not below (all of) the four appearances (and even so he is declared tahor). 6) "and it is dim": If it were bright (in the beginning), and it became dim (i.e., the dimmest of the four plague-spots), it is as if it were never bright (and he is declared tahor). "the plague-spot": If it were dim (in the beginning), and it became bright (even as snow), it is as if it were never dim (and it [along with the above], is regarded as "appearing as it did before" [viz. Vayikra 13:5], and he is tahor). 7) "has not spread": If it had diminished (to less than the size of a garis) and then spread (to its appearance of the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as "appearing as it did before," and he is tahor). "the plague-spot": If it had spread and then diminished (to its appearance at the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as "appearing as it did before," and he is tahor). 8) If they (i.e., the essential words) have been stated in relation to the first week (Vayikra 13:5), why need they be restated in relation to the second week (Vayikra 13:6)? (i.e., let it simply be written "And the Cohein shall see it on the seventh day again and he shall declare him clean"?) — Because if a plague-spot in a garment remains unchanged the first week, it (the garment) is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, it is burned (see Vayikra 13:50-52). But if a plague-spot in a man remains unchanged the first week, he is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, he is declared tahor. (And if this were not clearly spelled out in 13:6, we would say that as a garment in those circumstances is burned at the end of the second week, so a man in those circumstances is to be declared tamei at the end of the second week. [And we would understand "And the Cohein shall declare him clean" as applying to an instance in which he was healed of the plague-spot]). It must, therefore, be spelled out in both the first week and the second week. 9) "Then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath,": even though its appearance did not change (i.e., even if it did not leave the category of the four appearances, but only changed from its appearance to a different one.) I might think (that it is a mispachath) even if it (part of the garis) left (after he was declared tahor) and returned. It is, therefore, written "it is a mispachath" (and not a returned garis). What should be done with it? R. Yehudah says: It is to be inspected as in the beginning, and the sages rule it to be tahor. 10) "and he shall wash his clothes": so that he not (render things) tamei (by entering a house). "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": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "and if it shall spread, etc." he is tamei." 11) This tells me (that he is tamei) only (if it spreads in) its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same for (its spreading) not in its (original) appearance? From "spread it shall spread" (— in any event). 12) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through a spreading, and the spreading left, and then it returned — and, similarly, (through) white hair and michyah (see Vayikra 13:24) — whether in the end of the first week, the end of the second week, or after his exemption (from tumah) — that he reverts to his original status (of tumah)? From "and if spread it shall spread." 13) I might think that the spreading imparts tumah in the beginning, (before the quarantine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "after he has shown himself to the Cohein." I might think that if the Cohein sees it spreading (the first time he sees him), he should address himself to it (in the context of the laws of spreading); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "for his cleansing" — He does not address himself to it (the spreading) until he sees him (for the purpose of bringing him) from a state of tumah to a state of taharah (i.e., the second time he sees him, as opposed to the first time, when he is not yet in a state of tumah). (Vayikra 13:7) "then he shall show himself a second time to the Cohein.": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died (in the interim), a different Cohein sees him. 14) (Vayikra 13:8) ("And the Cohein shall see: If the mispachath has spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It (the mispachath) is leprosy.") This comes to teach us about the spreading that it is tamei only with four appearances, those with which the um (the original spot) becomes tamei. 15) And does this not follow, viz.: The um becomes tamei and the spreading becomes tamei. Just as the um becomes tamei only with four appearances, so the spreading becomes tamei only with four appearances. 16) — But why not go in this direction? viz.: White hair is a sign of tumah, and spreading is a sign of tumah. Just as white hair is tamei with all appearances of white, (even those below the brightness of the four appearances), so spreading is tamei with all appearances of white! 17) Let us see what it (spreading) most closely resembles. We derive a thing (spreading) which causes tumah in all plague-spots (those of house, garments, and men) from a thing (the um) which obtains in all plague-spots, and this is not to be refuted by white hair, which des not obtain in all plague-spots (but only in the skin of the flesh). — But why not go in this direction? viz.: We derive a thing (spreading) which is a sign of tumah, from a thing (white hair) which is a sign of tumah, and this is not to be refuted by the um, which (in itself is not a sign of tumah). It is, therefore, written "Then the Cohein shall declare him unclean; it is leprosy" — it becomes tamei only with the four appearances (of leprosy). "It (becomes tamei") — to exclude a spreading of bohak ("glistening white," not directly related to the leprosy).
Sifra Tazria Negaim Chapter 2*
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.