Midrasch zu Wajikra 13:3

1) (Vayikra 13:3) ("And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot in the skin of the flesh. If hair in the plague-spot has turned white, and the appearance of the plague-spot is deeper than the skin of his flesh, then it is a plague-spot of leprosy; and the Cohein shall see it and he shall declare him unclean.") "and the Cohein shall see the plague-spot": His eyes should be intently upon it when he inspects it. "in the skin of the flesh": intermediate (i.e., even if he is an Ethiopian, he is seen as "intermediate" [viz. Chapter 1:5]). "in the skin of the flesh": He should inspect all the flesh with it as one (to see if it has spread). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: The nega must be outside the skin of the flesh, right next to it, so that it lends itself to spreading. For if it were right next to the head, the beard, or a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation (viz. Chapter 1:1), it would not be tamei.

2) "If hair in the plague-spot": at least two hairs. "in the plague-spot": to include (as tamei) a hair rooted in the nega and lying outside of it; to exclude a hair rooted outside the nega and lying in it. "has turned white": and not (if it was white) before (the appearance of the plague-spot). From here they ruled: If the bahereth preceded the white hair, he is tamei; if the white hair preceded the bahereth, he is tahor; if there is a doubt (as to which preceded which), he is tamei. R. Yehoshua says: It is "dim" (and he is to be quarantined).

3) "If the hair in the plague-spot has turned white": From here they ruled: (If there were) two hairs, their roots ("in the plague-spot") black and their tops white, he is tahor; their roots white and their tops black, he is tamei. How large must the white be (to render him tamei)? R. Meir says: Any size. The sages say: The standard size (i.e., large enough for the scissors to cut). R. Meir says: Men should not think that they are judged by the whole hair, but if the root of the hair ("in the plague-spot") is white, he is tamei; and if it is not white, he is tahor.

4) (Vayikra 13:2) ("A man, if there be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it shall be in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:3) "and hair in the plague-spot had turned white," I would think that this denotes only a site where white hair can grow. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even a site where white hair cannot grow (like the palm of the hand)? From (the redundant) "in the skin of his flesh." "se'eth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "se'eth." "bahereth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "bahereth." "sapachath": This is an adjunct to (i.e., a lesser form of) se'eth, and its appearance is of lesser depth than that of bahereth. What is signified by "se'eth"? A "rising," as the appearance of a shadow, which seems higher than that of the sun. What is signified by (Vayikra 13:3) "deeper"? As the appearance of the sun, which seems deeper than that of the shadow. What is signified by "sapachath"? "adjunct," as it is written (I Samuel 2:36) "Join me ('sefacheini'), I pray you, to one of the priests' offices." "and it shall be": (We are hereby taught [by its being written "and it shall be" rather than "and they (se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth) shall be"]) that they combine with each other for purposes of negation (of leprosy), confirmation, and quarantine. "in the skin of his flesh": in (i.e., relative to) the skin of the flesh of the observed. In this connection it was stated: A very bright spot seems dull in a (light-complected) German, and a dull spot in an Ethiopian seems bright.

4) "has turned white": and not red, and not green, and not black. I would exclude all of these, but not yellow. And I would derive it a fortiori, viz.: If white hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a netek (a scall, viz. 13:30), is a sign of tumah in a nega, then yellow hair, which is a sign of tumah in a netek (viz. 32), how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nega! It is, therefore, written: "white hair," and not yellow.

5) "and the appearance … is deeper": but in actuality it is not deeper. "the appearance of the plague-spot is deep": but not the appearance of the white hair. "the appearance of the plague-spot": to include a fourth appearance (viz. Chapter 1:4). "it is a plague-spot of leprosy": There is no fifth appearance.

6) "a plague-spot of leprosy and he shall see it": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 15:11) "And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him" we learn that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined.

7) Whence is it derived that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed, that a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second plague-spot), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second plague-spot)? From "he shall not quarantine him for he is tamei" — Everyone who has been called tamei is not to be attended (for new eruptions within that period).

8) I might think that (if both negaim originated together, the second arising before he had been quarantined for the first, etc.) he could not say: You are quarantined for this one and confirmed for this one, confirmed for this one and quarantined for this one, quarantined for this one and quarantined for this one, confirmed for this one and for this one — it is, therefore, written "a nega … and he shall inspect it"; "tzara'ath and he shall inspect it" (connoting that he inspects both at the same time [as in the above]). "and he shall see it": all as one. If it were at the tip of his nose, slanting in both directions, (so that he could not inspect the whole nega at the sighting), at the tip of his finger, slanting in both directions, he is not tamei.

9) From here they ruled: There are twenty-four limb tips in a man which (because they cannot be observed in one sighting) do not become tamei by reason of michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:10): the finger tips of hands and feet, the ear tips, the nose tip, the membrum tip, and the breast tips in a woman. R. Yehudah says: also those of a man. R. Elazar says: Yevuloth, dildulim, and masmeroth (types of warts) are not tamei by reason of michyah (because they cannot be observed in one sighting).

10) "and he shall declare him unclean": "him," and not one who tears the tumah signs out of his plague-spot before he comes to the Cohein. R. Akiva said: I asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua going to Nadvad: (If he did so) in the midst of his quarantine what is the halachah? They answered: We have not heard it. But we did hear that (if he did so) before coming to the Cohein he is tahor; after his confirmation, he is tamei. I began to bring them proofs why it is that before he came to the Cohein he is tamei. It is not because the Cohein did not see the tumah signs, (for even if he did see them but did not pronounce him tamei, he is tahor). Even (if he did so) in the midst of his quarantine, he is tahor until the Cohein pronounces him tamei. Variantly: They said to me: You have said well. When does he (one who tore out his tumah signs after his confirmation) become tahor? R. Elazar says: when he develops another plague-spot and is cleared of it, (this indicating that the first nega, too, would have healed, as this one did.) The sages say: when it (the second nega) sprouts (and covers) all (the skin or the first nega; see 13:12), or when his plague-spot diminished in size to less than a garis (before he cut the tumah signs, in which instance he does not become tamei in the first place.)

And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If his money requires three, how much more so, his body! It is, therefore, written (re plague-spots, Vayikra 13:3) "… or to one of his sons, the Cohanim" — One Cohein rules on a plague-spot.