Commentary for Leviticus 13:6

כֵּהֶה means it has become paler than its former color — consequently if it remains in its color or if it has spread he is unclean.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE HIM A SECOND TIME THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE BE ‘KEIHAH’ (DIM), AND THE PLAGUE BE NOT SPREAD IN THE SKIN, THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN. Rashi commented: “Keihah means it has become paler⁹¹Since the term nega (plague) is masculine, and keihah (pale) is in the feminine, the word keihah cannot be an adjective to nega [meaning: “if the plague is pale”]. Instead, it must mean, as Rashi points out, “if the plague has become pale,” serving as a verb. than its [former] color. [This allows the inference] that if the plague remains in its former color and has not extended in the skin, he is impure.”
This indeed is the sense of the verse.⁹²For since the verse states two conditions for the priest’s pronouncement that the person is pure — namely, if the plague has become paler, and the plague be not spread in the skin — it is obvious that if only the first condition has been met, but not the second, that the person is impure. This is the meaning of Ramban’s comment on Rashi’s statement. But the interpretation of our Rabbis is not so, for we have been taught in the Mishnah:⁹³Negaim 1:3. “To cause to be put in quarantine [for a second week] such a plague which continues unchanged at the end of the first week; to pronounce pure such a plague which continues unchanged by the end of the second week.” And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have expressly said⁹⁴Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:8. that in the case of garments, if the plague is at a stay at the end of the first week, they are to be put in quarantine [for a second week], and if it be at a stay at the end of the second week, they are to be burnt; but in the case of a person, if the plague be at a stay at the end of the first week the priest is to put him in quarantine for another week, but if at the end of the second week it is still at a stay he is to pronounce him pure. And in Tractate Megillah the Rabbis have further said:⁹⁵Megillah 8 b. “This excludes a leper who has been put in quarantine for a week, whose state of leprosy is determined not by his bodily condition, but merely by days.”⁹⁶“For if on the seventh day the symptoms of impurity are not found in the plague, namely, the black hair in it has not turned white, or that the plague did not spread in the skin, the priest will pronounce him pure, even though the plague is still at a stay” (Rashi, ibid.). Now if it were necessary that the plague should become dim, then his purity would be dependent upon his bodily condition! Rashi himself explained it there in such language, saying that the leper’s purity is not dependent on the physical state of the plague, for if at the end of seven days a symptom of impurity — white hair or extension of the plague — is not found, the priest is to pronounce him pure although the plague has stayed in its appearance, that is at the end of the second week.⁹⁷If the plague has stayed in its appearance at the end of the first week that the infected person was shut up, Verse 5 clearly states, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more. The discussion here relates only to the end of the second week.
Rather, this is what the Sages said:⁹⁸Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:6. at the end of the second week, whether the plague has paled from the color of snow to [the shade of white of] the lime used in the Sanctuary, or like the white of an egg’s membrane, or even if it has become stronger, namely, that it was at first like the lime [used in the Sanctuary] and then [at the end of the second week] it had become bright-white like snow, and all the more so if it remained in its original color — as long as it did not spread in the skin, the priest pronounces it pure. If so, the interpretation of this verse is as follows: “if the plague be ‘keihah,’ meaning that it has turned into the color of another plague, such as from that of snow to that of lime, since it has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is but a scab.” For in order that one should not say, “since the plague has changed into the color of another plague it must be inspected from anew,” Scripture therefore expressly taught that he is deemed pure. The same law applies if the color became stronger, since Scripture has already taught you that a change from color to color is not a symptom of impurity, but rather is considered as if it is at a stay, and as long as it did not spread in the skin [the afflicted person] is pure. Should you ask: “But why did Scripture not mention expressly the case of a change to a stronger color [as being pure], and we would know that this is all the more so if it became paler?” [The answer is that Scripture] came to teach you that although it became paler, if it spread in the skin he is nevertheless impure. Now the meaning of the word keihah is that the plague has become paler, changing to one of the colors of leprosy-signs, such as from that of snow to that of an egg’s membrane, which can still be a leprosy-sign. But if it has become paler than the colors of leprosy-signs, in that case the person is already healed, and there is no longer a plague; thus even a spreading thereof no longer renders him impure at all. In a similar manner to this presentation has it been explained in the Torath Kohanim.⁹⁸Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:6.

והנה כהה הנגע, and the affliction has dimmed, etc. Rashi explains this to mean that if the appearance of the affliction remains either stationary or has spread, the person suffering from it is impure. Maimonides writes in chapter one of his treatise Hilchot Tum-at Tzora-at that the word כהה means that if the appearance is less white than any of the four degrees of whiteness the Torah had described, the person afflicted by it is now טהור, "clean." Similarly, if it neither spread nor dimmed nor sprouted a white hair in the area of the affliction, the person who suffered these symptoms is "clean" also. Thus far Maimonides.

Or it spread, he is impure. I.e., you should not infer: [If it] became dimmer than its [original] appearance, even though the skin-eruption spread, or it did not spread, even though it maintained its hue — he does not need confinement and is pure. Rather, you should infer: [If it] became dimmer and also it did not spread, then he does not need confinement and he is pure, as it implies: “became dimmer and [the skin-eruption] did not spread.” But, if it maintained its appearance even though it did not spread, or it spread even though it became dimmer, he must be confined and is impure. This is implied nearby: “If [the white discoloration] has spread,” and it is not written: “And it maintains its hue.” [Thus,] it implies either this or that (Minchas Yehudah). [This contradicts what Re’m explained in Rashi above, however, see Ramban: “This is the implication of the verse, but according to the drashah of Chazal it is not so (Negaim 1:3).” There, it is explained that after the second week even if it maintains its hue, as long as it does not spread, it is pure. See also Divrei Dovid].

ביום השביעי שנית, “again on the seventh day;” we learn from here that the nega will not become ritually clean unless it had shrunk. This is also how Rashi explains it with the word כהה, i.e. its appearance had become dimmer. If it had become more pronounced or remained static the afflicted person is ritually unclean. The accepted ruling, halachah, however, is that if it did not spread out, the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. This has also been spelled out in the Mishnah in tractate Nega’im chapter 1, Mishnah 3. We quote: ארבעה מראות האלו מצטרפין זה עם זה לפטור ולהחליט ולהסגיר., “Any of these four shades (that have been mentioned before) may combine together to declare clean, or to certify as definite affliction by a nega, or to cause the suspected victim to be shut up.” The first example listed is that the suspected area has remained static at the end of the second week. The expression in the Mishnah להסגר, for shutting up, refers to the first examination after the priest’s visit. The expression לפטור, to declare ritually clean, refers to the visit of the priest after the second week. Similar rules apply if the symptoms had been white like snow after the first week, and by the end of the second week the affected area looked like the whitewashed area of Sanctuary. This is not considered as “having dimmed,” but as having remained static, until the area afflicted has shrunk. Some scholars state that the reason these details have been written in the Torah in this context is to tell us that if the appearance had not dimmed at all, then the afflicted person is declared ritually clean. We are to learn that a change from snow white to whitewashed, or vice versa from snow-white to whitewashed or vice versa, is not to be interpreted as a new type of nega having surfaced. Our author quotes one or two alternate interpretations of the words ביום השביעי שנית, but seeing that the legislation does not apply in our time and we need the prophet Elijah to rule on whose interpretation is correct, this editor sees no point in pursuing this subject at this time.

והנה כהה הנגע ולא פשה הנגע בעור וטהרו, “and behold, if the plague had dimmed and the plague had not spread;” the priest declares the afflicted person as ritually pure.”If you were to ask why the Torah appears to repeat itself, seeing that it is obvious that if the symptoms had not spread, and the afflicted person is declared ritually pure, then if the symptoms had diminished he must certainly be declared ritually pure? You have to understand the words: ולא פשה, “and it did not spread,” as applying to the result of the priest’s inspection after the first seven days. When at the second inspection it turned out that not only had the affliction not spread but it had even diminished, only then does the priest declare that person as ritually pure, i.e. as cured. It is not possible to understand the words: “the afflicted area did not increase” as applying to the second period of seven days because Rashi there had explained already that as long as the afflicted person had not been healed he remains not only potentially ritually impure, but he remains absolutely ritually impure. Concerning the healing process, i.e. the afflicted person’s progress toward ritual purity, the second inspection, Rashi says clearly that the appearance of the affliction, i.e. that it had not diminished, is proof that he remains impure (pending) and if it had spread he is definitively impure. Concerning his ritual purity, the Torah writes: (14,3) והנה נרפא נגע הצרעת מן הצרוע, “and behold if the plague of tzoraat that the afflicted person suffers from has been healed;” as soon as this has occurred the afflicted person can leave the place where he had been locked up, i.e. even though his symptoms have not disappeared. All that is required is that on the second inspection after the second period of seven days the symptoms have not spread. והנה כהה הנגע, “and behold the symptoms of the affliction have diminished;” even though one might have thought that any change [even for the better,] is proof of a new affliction, and that the person would be declared as ritually contaminates; in order to forestall such erroneous thinking, the Torah added the word: והנה, “and lo and behold!”

מספחת — This is the name of a clean leprous disease.

According to Rashi the expression כהה in the Torah describes a comparison to a previous condition which definitely was one of the other three symptoms qualifying for the description נגע צרעת, whereas the present appearance is not one which does not qualify for any of the four degrees of whiteness which would constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת. Had the Torah wanted to exclude the presence at this stage of all the four possible symptoms which constitute the presence of a נגע צרעת, the Torah should have written that there was no appearance of anything which looked like נגע צרעת. We must conclude therefore that our verse discusses someone who had previously displayed at least one of the three other kinds of white areas which would signify נגע צרעת such as the בהרת described in verse 2 which had a subcategory ספחת. If, however, the appearance had already been at the lowest end of the scale of white, i.e. the skin covering an egg, it could not have dimmed any further [and still be of concern to us halachically at all. Ed.] Alternatively, we would have to assume that there is a lower degree of whiteness in any of the four categories נגע צרעת the Torah has discussed thus far, and it is this relatively dimmer appearance the Torah describes here as כהה הנגע. The נגע described as בהרת itself would consist of either of two degrees of whiteness, both being close in appearance to snow-white. One of these degrees existed prior to the stage described in the Torah as כהה, the other after that stage had been reached. We find the following statement in Nega-im 1,4: Rabbi Chanina says there are altogether 16 shades of a colour which could qualify as נגע צרעת. Rabbi Dotha claims that there are 36 such shades. Akavyah ben Mahallel says that there are no fewer than 72 such shades which have to be examined. We may assume that these Rabbis do not disagree as to which shades constitute an affliction resulting in the victm becoming declared ritually impure, etc; they disagree only as to the number of shades there are that a priest must be familiar with in order to render the proper ruling. [these shades include also other kinds of skin afflictions such as מכרה and שחין, נתקים, etc.. Ed.] Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah also writes that the disagreements do not concern basic categories which would qualify as נגע צרעת. Only a few of these shades actually qualify as נגע צרעת. There are two basic methods which may bring about a change in the legal status of the afflicted person, seeing that the "dimming" is what determines the process of the afflicted person becoming "clean." Either there has to be a dimming from one basic category to a lower basic category of whiteness, or there only needs to occur a dimming from the higher level of a category to a lower level of whiteness within the same basic category. One may make a case for either of these approaches except that the first method appears somewhat forced. Rashi is true to his method of interpretation of the Torah and adopts the approach that the word כהה הנגע is followed in the Torah by the word הנגע indicating that the affliction has not been totally uprooted though it has improved. It has only improved in appearance. Therefore he arrives at the conclusion that if the appearance even dimmed only relatively, within the major category it belonged to previously, this is sufficient to have this person declared "clean."

וטהרו, “he [the examining priest Ed] declares him as ritually pure.” He does so by making this declaration by mouth.

וכבס את בגדיו וטהר AND HE SHALL WASH HIS GARMENTS AND BE CLEAN — Since he required shutting up he was termed (was regarded as coming under the term) “unclean” (although it now transpires that he was clean), and he must undergo immersion in a ritual bath.

According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the נגע having dimmed, this means that it has become dimmer than any of the four basic categories of whiteness which cause the priest to pronounce the person so afflicted as impure. The present state of colour is dimmer than any of the four degrees of whiteness described in the Torah. In this respect Maimonides agrees with Rashi that if the whiteness had dimmed to a degree of whiteness less bright than the four categories listed, the person concerned is declared "clean." If, however, we were to understand that the words כהה הנגע, are a dimming which is darker than the original white but still within the four shades of white which constitute נגע צרעת, what news does the Torah reveal by saying that such a person remains impure? We have to explain the words of Maimonides as referring to the need for the afflicted person to wash his clothing [complete ritual immersion. Ed.] even if the present appearance of the formerly white spot is dimmer than any of the four categories of whiteness which result in the priest declaring such a person as afflicted with נגע צרעת.

וכבס בגדיו, the now ritually pure person will immerse his clothing, [seeing that they had become contaminated by his having worn them in his state of the plague, Ed.] Naturally, if he had to immerse his clothing, it is understood that he also has to immerse his body in a ritual bath, (seeing there had been doubt if he had remained pure during the period when he had been locked up he might not have not been careful not to become ritually unclean in a way unrelated to his plague) following this, the process of purification is complete,.וטהר

If we accept Rashi's opinion, why did the Torah not make the dimming of the afflicted spot conditional on it reverting to its original colour just as the Torah made the declaration by the priest that the person is definitely afflicted dependent on the area of the whiteness spreading? According to Maimonides, when the Torah speaks of the afflicted area as not "having spread," the meaning is that it has not dimmed in colour either. According to Rashi we do not know what the legal status of the person under observation at the end of the second week would be in such a situation.

As mentioned previously, we can approach the problem in two ways. According to method one, both expressions i.e. כהה and לא פשה הנגע describe conditions which result in the formerly afflicted person being considered "clean." Seeing that we do not need both expressions in order to teach us the same הלכה in the same setting, one of these expressions is used exegetically as applicable to a situation other than the one described in our verse. [something which in the thirteen exegetical rules of Rabbi Yishmael is called לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא על הכלל כולו יצא; Ed.] In our case one example, i.e. that the whiteness has dimmed, teaches that if it resumes its former brightness the person previously under suspicion of being a צרוע will this time be considered as definitely afflicted. This will be so even though the white spot he suffers from now is no brighter than the whiteness of the spot he suffered from previously while he was only under observation. This is only true however, if previously the white spot had never dimmed enough to be less white than any of the basic four categories of whiteness which potentially make him impure, afflicted. Seeing he had previously not been declared impure, his again having a spot of that degree of whiteness on his skin would not make him worse off than before, i.e. under observation by the priest only. Do not ask concerning the example of פשיון, spreading, which the Torah describes as one following the afflicted person having come under the priest's scrutiny and isolation and having been declared ritually pure. The person in question is one who is again ritually pure. Nonetheless the Torah ordered that if such a spread occurred again, the person afflicted is considered impure and the Torah does not allow for a situation where the area concerned either contracted or remained stationary. Why does the Torah not allow for a situation there where the afflicted person reverts to the status prior to the white area having spread, i.e. his status would be one of suspended ritual purity pending further developments? This is not a valid question because in a situation of פשיון, a horizontal spreading of the affected area, the priest declares such a person as definitely צרוע already at the end of the first seven days of quarantine, unlike the situation described in verses 4-6 where the shade of white is the determining factor. Perhaps Rashi thought that the second approach to our problem is based on reasoning and does not require a specific verse to confirm it. This is an essential weakness in Rashi's approach.

Personally, I prefer to explain our verse in the following manner: והנה כהה הנגע; "and behold, the affliction has dimmed;" it has become dimmer than its original appearance but it still is white enough to qualify under one of the basic four categories as a נגע צרעת, (just as Rashi had said). However, the intention of our verse is that even if the appearance of the white spots had dimmed, the individual in question is to be declared "clean" only if there had not been a horizontal expansion of the afflicted area on the skin during the week in question. If the white area on the skin has expanded horizontally, the person retains the same status as he had at the previous inspection by the priest a week earlier. My only difficulty is to know on what basis our verse arrives at this conclusion.

Meanwhile I have seen the following statement of our sages in Torat Kohanim. "You might have thought that the words והנה כהה הנגע mean that the appearance of the white spot is dimmer than any of the four basic categories of white which would qualify as נגע צרעת; therefore the Torah adds the word הנגע, to tell you that the Torah speaks of one of these four categories. If the Torah had only written the word הנגע you would have thought that it could have remained looking the same as on the last inspection. Therefore the Torah had to write והנה כהה, it had definitively dimmed when measured against its previous appearance but not sufficiently to be dimmer than any of the four categories of white which qualify as a נגע צרעת. The words והנה כהה also mean that if its whiteness intensified during that week and dimmed subsequently it is as if it had not intensified; the word הנגע means that if it had first dimmed during that week only to intensify again, it is as if it had never dimmed at all." Thus far Torat Kohanim. Clearly, the author of Torat Kohanim feels that the dimming was not sufficient to result in such a dim appearance that it no longer would have qualified as a נגע צרעת at all, unlike the comment of Rashi. However, from the statement that if the afflicted area had intensified in whiteness at some time during that week or dimmed and intensified again, we disregard all dimming or intensification respectively as if they had not occurred, it is clear that this conforms to our own interpretation. It is the intention of our verse that if a certain degree of whiteness was not visible originally, then even if it had become much whiter in the interval as long as it had dimmed by the time the priest inspected it again it would be declared healed, provided it had not spread horizontally. Having established this, the author of this Baraitha clearly disagrees with both Rashi ad Maimonides. Nonetheless, as mentioned we still have no source for the opinion offered by the author of Torat Kohanim. Perhaps it is simply a condition that there has to be a dimming of some kind before the quarantined person may qualify for the description "clean."

I have found another comment in Torat Kohanim on our portion which is as follows: "the meaning of the word מספחת in our verse is that though it did not change its appearance." This means that even if it did not become weaker in appearance the person under observation is declared "clean" on the second inspection by the priest. If so, we can once more revert to explain that the reason is that the word כהה means that the priest does not initially examine if the whiteness has dimmed; neither does he immediately consider if it had intensified. Both the words of Rashi and Maimonides need further examination and seem very difficult to reconcile with Torat Kohanim.

מספחת הוא, it is a scab. This means that it is not a צרעת, similar to the word בהק הוא in Leviticus 13,39: "it is a brightness." Nonetheless the Torah commands people afflicted with such symptoms to wash their clothing, i.e. an indication that they have contracted a minor form of impurity. If we look for a homiletical meaning for this law it may be that it indicates that the victim was guilty of something called אבק לשון הרע, a peripheral form of loose talk about a third party. We find an example for this in Erchin 15 where a person who described a fire in a neighbour's house is described as guilty of אבק לשון הרע.

Another meaning of the expression מספחת היא is simply that this is a form of affliction which requires the person so afflicted to "wash the clothing he wore when this affliction was diagnosed by the priest." [actually it means ritual immersion. Ed.] We derive this from the sequence of the words מספחת היא וכבס בגדיו. From the words וטהרו הכהן just prior to this sequence it seems clear that the priest first has to say to the afflicted person "you are clean" before he is back to normal. This appears to be difficult to understand. It makes sense that the person quarantined because of certain symptoms would not be considered טמא, impure, unless so declared by the examining priest; but why should a person who has not so far been declared as impure require to be declared pure by the priest before returning to society? Granted that Rashi says somewhere that this is because the person had already been quarantined, this is not a sufficient reason. When you accept our approach to the whole verse there is an adequate reason for the priest having to declare such a person as "clean." We had characterised this symptom as a form of skin-affliction. If so, it is reasonable that the victim cannot be purified from it without the formal declaration by the priest that he is "clean" henceforth.