Midrash sobre Levítico 13:48

1) (Vayikra 13:49) ("And it shall be, if the plague-spot is deep green or deep red in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is a plague-spot of leprosy, and it shall be shown to the Cohein.") Or perhaps just as (skin is likened to wool and) wool is from a small beast (a sheep), which is eaten, then skin, too, (to be subject to leprosy tumah) must be from a small beast, which is eaten. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) a small beast which is not eaten, a large beast which is eaten, a large beast which is not eaten … until I include the skins of sheratzim? From the repetition of "in the skin" (Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49). I might think that both dyed and undyed skins are subject to tumah. It is, therefore, written (twice, Vayikra 13:48 and Vayikra 13:49) "garment." Just as "garment" connotes all white, so skins (to be subject to tumah) must be all white. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says "or (in the skin") includes the dyed. R. Shimon says: One verse says "in the garment," (connoting white); another says "in the skin" (connoting also colored). How are these to be reconciled? Colored by Heaven are subject to tumah; colored by man are not subject to tumah.

4) (Vayikra 13:48) ("Or in the warp or in the woof of flax and of wool; or in skin, or in any worked skin.") I would exclude what is dyed by the hands of man, but I would not exclude what is dyed by the hands of Heaven; it is, therefore, written "of flax and of wool." Just as flax is white, so wool must be white (to be subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.)

5) "or in the warp or in the woof": I might think that the warp and woof of nafah and kevarah (types of sieves made from animal hair) were subject to (leprosy) tumah, (other varieties being excluded only if they do not qualify as "garment"); it is, therefore, written "in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax" (i.e., it is only a garment which acquires such tumah). I would then exclude (from such tumah) warp and woof of nafah and kevarah, but not that of (human) hair. And this would (also) follow a fortiori, viz. If wool, which in no instance is subject to burning because of tumah, (still) its warp and woof are subject to such tumah,

6) then (human) hair, which is subject to burning (in the instance of the Nazirite), how much more so should its warp and woof be subject to such tumah! It is, therefore, written "of wool or of flax," but not of hair.

7) I might think that they are subject to tumah immediately (i.e., even before they are fully processed); it is, therefore, written "garment." Just as "garment" connotes complete processing, so all (i.e., warp and woof) must be completely processed. What is their complete processing? The warp, when it is boiled; the woof, at once; and the bundles of flax, when they are whitened. These are the words of R. Yehudah. I might think that any size is subject to tumah. It is, therefore, written "garments." Just as (something is not called a) "garment" until there is a weaving of warp and woof the size of three fingers by three fingers, so, all (pieces of cloth) — even if there were enough thread in the coil to make the entire warp and the entire woof. (If the coil consisted of) separate (threads), it is not subject to leprosy tumah. R. Yehudah says: If there were even one separation (in the entire coil) and he tied it, it is not subject to leprosy tumah.

8) "or in skin": I might think (without a verse saying otherwise) that the skin of sea-creatures, too, should be subject to (leprosy) tumah. — But it follows inductively (that I would not think so), viz.: There is sheretz tumah and there is leprosy tumah. Just as the skin of sea-creatures is not subject to sheretz tumah, so the skin of sea-creatures is not subject to leprosy tumah.

9) And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori (that it is not subject to leprosy tumah), viz.: If with sheratzim, the colored among which are subject to tumah, the skins of sea-creatures are not subject to tumah, then with leprosy, where dyed garments are not subject to tumah, how much more so should the skin of sea-creatures not be subject to tumah! — No, this may be so with sheratzim, where there is no tumah of warp and woof, as opposed to leprosy, where there is tumah of warp and woof. And since this is so, (without a verse stating otherwise), would you say that the skin of sea-creatures is not subject (to leprosy tumah)? It must, therefore, be written (to counter-indicate this) "in a garment (… or in skin"). Just as a "garment" (in this context) "grows" on the land, so "skin" (must be skin) that "grows" on the land (to exclude the skin of sea-creatures). I might think that I also exclude (from leprosy tumah the skin of a sea-creature) to which has been attached something which does grow on land. It is, therefore, written (to counter-indicate this) "or in skin," to include the latter, even if what is attached is a leading string, so long as it is attached in the generic manner of tumah attachments.

10) I might think that also included (as subject to leprosy tumah) is untanned hide and unsalted hide; it is, therefore, written "worked (processed) skin," to exclude untanned hide and unsalted hide.

11) I would then exclude the latter, but I would not exclude hides (intended for) sandal thongs, which have been processed. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:49) "implement (of skin")," to exclude hides (intended for) sandal thongs, which are not implements.

12) But then I might think to exclude tent skins, which are not "implements"; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:51) "whatever work the skin is made for," to include tent skins.