Midrash sobre Levítico 13:57

1) (Vayikra 13:56) ("And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed, then he shall tear it from the garment, or from the skin, or from the warp, or from the woof, (Vayikra 13:57). And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath. In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot.") "then he shall tear": I might think that he tears it just a little to fulfill the mitzvah of tearing; it is, therefore, written "it." If "it," I might think that he might slash it and leave it in its place; it is, therefore, written "from the garment" — he must remove it from the garment.

4) (Vayikra 13:57) ("And if it be seen again in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, it is porachath (something whose "blossoming" recurs). In fire shall you burn it (the entire garment), what contains the plague-spot"). Whence is it derived that he places a patch upon it (the site of the torn out plague-spot)? From "and if it be seen again," and "again" can apply only to the site," whereby we learn that he places a patch upon it.

5) R. Nechemiah says: A patch is not required, ("again" referring to the garment from which the plague-spot was torn out). If (after the patch was placed on the site) the plague-spot returned to the garment (at a different site), the patch is "rescued" (i.e., it need not be burned, not being part of the original garment). If it returned upon the patch, the (entire) garment is burned (along with the patch). If one patched aught of a quarantined (garment) on a clean (garment), and the plague-spot reappeared on the (clean) garment, the patch is burned. If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment is burned. And (a separate ruling:) The patch can be used for the second garment with (identifying signs [so that it not be confused with other patches]).

6) This ("And if it be seen again") implies in its original place. Whence is it derived (that it requires burning if it reappears) anywhere on the garment? From "in the garment." I might think (this applies if it reappeared) in any size. It is, therefore, written "again." Just as the first, the size of a garis, so the second, the size of a garis.

7) ("and if it be seen again":) This tells me only (if it is seen again) in its original appearance. Whence do I derive (that it is tamei) even not in its original appearance (but in any appearance of tumah, e.g., from deep green to deep red)? From "a blossoming" — whether or not in its original appearance.

8) — But perhaps the thrust of "a blossoming" is that it is not tamei unless it returns and spreads even more (than its original appearance). — (This is not so, for) "it (is a blossoming") connotes its remaining as it was. How, then, is "a blossoming" to be construed? As "whether or not in its original appearance."

9) Of a linen curtain that had stripes running through it, dyed and white, they asked R. Eliezer: It has only one white stripe (the size of a garis, which has nowhere to spread, the other stripes being dyed and thus not being subject to plague-spot tumah. [the question: Does this require quarantine if there is no point in quarantining it to see whether or not it will spread?]) He answered: (It must be quarantined, but) I have not heard (why). R. Yehudah b. Betheirah said to him: Shall I study it? R. Eliezer: If to substantiate the words of the sages (that it must be quarantined), yes, (but not to contravene them). R. Yehudah (after study): Perhaps it will remain (without dimming) for two weeks, and a plague-spot that remains (undimmed) in garments for two weeks (even without spreading) is tamei. R. Eliezer: You are a great sage, for you have substantiated the words of the sages. A spreading, if it adjoins (the original plague-spot is tamei) with any amount; if distant, it requires the size of a garis.