Commentary for Leviticus 13:5

בעניו means in its original colour and size.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL LOOK AT HIM ON THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE STAY ‘B’EINAV.’ “This means in its original color and size.”⁸⁵The literal meaning of b’einav is “in his eyes,” i.e., the eyes of the priest examining the plague. Ramban will further on stress this literal meaning of the word. This is Rashi’s language. Similarly, ‘v’eino’ (and the appearance thereof) was as the appearance of bdellium;⁸⁶Numbers 11:7. and so also, ‘k’ein’ (like the color of) the crystal ice.⁸⁷Ezekiel 1:22. These two verses bear out Rashi’s interpretation of einav as meaning “its appearance,” thus making the sense of the verse to be: and, behold, if the plague stay ‘in its appearance.’
But in the Torath Kohanim we have been taught as follows:⁸⁸Further, Verse 37. Thus if after having shut the person up in a house for seven days, the priest is in doubt whether the plague has spread [in which case he would pronounce it at once as a genuine case of leprosy], but his son or pupil who saw it at the beginning says definitely that the affliction did not spread, the priest may follow their opinion and may shut him up for another seven days. See my Hebrew commentary p. 70, for further discussion of this point. “[From the expression here] I know only that the plague so appeared [i.e., in its original size] in his own [i.e., the priest’s] eyes. Whence do I know that the same law applies if it so appeared in the eyes of his pupil? Scripture therefore says [in Verse 27]. But if the scall stay ‘b’einav.’” Now if so, the meaning of the verse here would be: “and if the plague is at a stay in the sight of the aforementioned priest,” namely that it has remained as it was, neither having changed its place nor having spread in the skin, wheresoever the priest looks [then he shall shut him up for another seven days]. The usage [of the term a’yin (eye)] is often found in the words of the Sages.⁸⁹The term chachamim (Sages) is evidently used by Ramban here not in the strict sense of the term, as referring to the Sages of the Talmud, as I have not found this expression in Talmudic literature. It must then be a reference to the later scholars in whose writings this expression abounds. Thus: “So it appears in my eyes.” So also you find [in Scripture]: O man of G-d, I pray thee, let my life be precious ‘b’einecha’ (in thy sight],⁹⁰II Kings 1:14. meaning, in your opinion and thought. Thus the verse here alludes to the principle that the priest in examining whether the plague has extended in the skin need only judge it as he sees it, but it is not necessary that [he base his decision] upon measuring the plague.

וראהו הכהן, it is a decree by the Torah that only a priest is qualified to determine what is ritually pure and what is ritually impure in all matters pertaining to these skin afflictions. The prophet Maleachi 2,7 echoes this concept when he says that כי שפתי כהן ישמרו דת, “that the lips (pronouncements) of the priest will preserve the Jewish religion.” The priest is also required to counsel the afflicted person to examine his lifestyle so that he himself will become the key to his rehabilitation. At the same time the Priest will add his own prayer when asking G’d to heal the afflicted. Apart from his prayer his expertise will tell him when the stage has been reached when the affliction has waned so that the count toward rehabilitation and the presentation of offerings can begin.

והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and behold- the affliction remained static.” Nachmanides quotes Rashi as writing that the word בעיניו means that the affliction’s appearance has undergone no change either in appearance or size. He assumed that the word עין is the same as in כעין הבדולח in Numbers 11,7 where the appearance of the manna is described, was Rashi’s source. He points out that Torat Kohanim takes a different approach, understanding the word עין literally as “eye,” ruling that determination of the afflicted person’s purity or impurity is governed by the subjective criterion of how it appears to the examining priest, and not to the objective criterion of measuring it. If the priest’s perception is different from the perception of his disciple, for instance, the priest’s perception is automatically considered as decisive. He need not measure the affliction to verify if his perception had been correct. However, my sainted father the R’osh, said that the priest was required already on his first examination to make a mark on the skin delineating the extent of the affliction, so as to enable him to compare the size of the affliction when he would examine it the second time. This is clearly stated in connection with afflictions that occur on a person’s head, where the Torah demands that the area around the affliction must be shaved off. (Compare 13,33) The priest leaves two hairs adjoining the afflicted are in place, in order to be certain what precisely the area of the affliction had been on the occasion when he first examined it. What holds true for the way afflictions of the head are examined, also hold true for the manner in which the results of examinations of other parts of the skin’s surface are conducted and recorded, i.e. also the terms for temporary seclusion of the person so afflicted. The explanation by Rashi of the words והסגירו הכהן שבעת ימים, that the priest imposed a house arrest on the afflicted party for seven days, was not accepted by the author’s father. He claims that nowhere in the entire tractate of Negaim is there a mention that the afflicted party is under house arrest. Verse 4, mentioning the word והסגיר for the first time, refers to the נגע, not to the person afflicted with it; the meaning is that the area of the נגע is to be clearly delineated, and for a period of seven days following this, no second examination to determine if it had spread or receded is to be undertaken.

והנה הנגע עמד בעיניו, “and here the skin-disorder remained in its (previous) color and condition.” The word בעיניו means “in its appearance.” The word עין is used in a similar meaning when the Torah describes the appearance of the manna in Numbers 11,7 where the wording is ועינו כעין הבדולח, “and its appearance was like the appearance of crystal.” It was similar in appearance to what is described in Ezekiel 1,22 as the קרח הנורא, the “awesome ice.”
On the other hand, Torat Kohanim based on Sifra Tazria 13,37 derives from the wording of the text that if the Torah had not written these words I would have thought that only the officiating priest at the first inspection but not that priest’s son or student would be entitled to undertake this inspection. Hence the Torah wrote בעיניו that if initially several priests had inspected the symptoms and most feel that there had been no change their opinion is accepted, (based on verse 37 in this chapter where the word בעיניו occurs again and cannot have the same meaning as in verse 5, hence it must mean “in his eyes.”) Accordingly, the correct translation of our verse here would be: “if in the eyes of the priest already mentioned there had not been any change in the skin disorder he had inspected previously, etc., then this priest shall quarantine the afflicted person for a second period of seven days.” The expression בעיני in that context is one frequently used in Mishnaic Hebrew such as in Baba Kama 41 כך אני בעיניך “so I appear in your eyes,” Or Kings II 1,13 תיקר נא נפשי בעיניך, “may my life be precious in your eyes” (the captain of fifty to the prophet Elijah pleading for his life). The principal message of the words is that the priest does not use measuring devices to determine if the skin disorder had spread but he relies on his eyes to estimate the state of affairs.

Its appearance and original size. That which Rashi explains also, “and original size” is not an explanation of the expression בעיניו. Rather, it refers to what it is written, “the skin-eruption did not spread,” rather, it is still its original size. You might ask: Why does Rashi need to explain this? It is clearly written: “The skin-eruption did not spread”! Furthermore, Rashi should have explained this on the verse: “Did not spread” — “And is like its original size.” Another difficulty: That which Rashi explains: “And confine him ... a second time.” — “Thus, if it spread...” — This is obvious, since it says, “and behold! ... did not spread ... [the kohein] shall confine him...” which implies that if it did spread he is definitely impure. The answer is: Rashi’s view is to say that we must infer that it is in its original appearance and also its original size — that the skin-eruption did not spread — then, he must be confined a second time and he is not yet definitely impure. However, if it spread he is definitely impure. [Accordingly, the s.v. “And confine him ... a second time” is actually a continuation of the s.v. “Maintained its hue,” and they are both parts of one s.v.]. However, you should not infer [from the word] בעיניו [that it means] only if it is in its original appearance, then he must be confined, but if it did not maintain its original appearance, for instance, it became whiter, he would be definitely impure, for this is not relevant: Since it was already white [which is a sign of impurity] it is not relevant that it becomes whiter. Rather, we should infer that only if it maintains its original appearance, that is, its original whiteness, and also it did not spread, i.e., from its original size, then he needs to be confined. However, if the skin-eruption spread and remained in its original whiteness, he is definitely impure. But if it did not maintain its hue, for instance, it became less white, even though the skin-eruption spread, it is still not definitely impure. This is because it is not written, “or it did not spread,” which would imply either this or that. These are the principles of Re’m’s explanation, see there at length. However, he raises a difficulty there: Why did [the Rabbis] teach [in a Mishnah] (Negaim 3:3) there are three signs of impurity: the white hair, healthy flesh, and spreading? There are actually four, including the maintaining of their hue! This can be resolved: [The Rabbis] taught in the Mishnah only those signs of impurity that pertain to the first week; this is not the case of maintaining their hue, which is relevant to the second week.

עמד בעיניו, “and the plague had retained the same appearance, looking the same in the eyes of the priest,” (who had examined it the last time). According to Rashi who considers the subject as being the nega, affliction, the Torah should have written עומד בעיניו, in the present tense.

וראהו הכהן ביום השביעי, “when the priest looks at it on the seventh day;” he does not wait a whole seven days before inspecting the affliction again. From this verse we learn the principle that in the Torah even part of a day is considered as if it were a whole day.

שנית … ‎והסגירו HE SHALL SHUT HIM UP … A SECOND TIME — Consequently if it has spread during the first week, he is decidedly unclean, and no further quarantine is required.

If it spread. Although the entire Torah is general rules, and from the negative rule you derive the positive one, [Rashi needs to explain here] because two inferences that can be derived from here: One is, “if it spread,” and the other is, “if [its hue] became stronger.” [Therefore,] he needs to say that the inference here is only one: “If it spread,” and not “if it became stronger.” This is because even if its appearance became stronger, since the first and the last appearances are both appearances of impurity, we apply the verse that it “maintained its hue” (Re’m).

עמד בעיניו, “has remained unchanged;” the area that had been strongly inflamed had not weakened, and the areas that had been relatively mildly inflamed had not become more inflamed.

שבעת ימים שנית “a second period of seven days of waiting.” The first “seventh” day, counts as a whole day in both directions. (Sifra)