Talmud sur Samuel 1 2:36

From where that they can be joined one to the other³⁷A discoloration cannot imply impurity unless it contain an inscribed square of the size of half a Cilician bean; this is defined as (36 hairwidths)². The spot does not have to be of uniform color.? Rebbi Mana said, the Sages counted them as two and counted them as four. Just as two can be joined one to the other³⁸Since they are mentioned together in one verse. so also four can be joined one to the other. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Abin²⁴R. Abin mentioned at the start of the paragraph is R. Abin the son, head of the Academy of Tiberias at the time of R. Mana in Sepphoris. The reading “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Abin” (In G: “in the name of R. Abun”, at a second occurrence “R. Eliezer ben R. Abun”) is impossible since R. Abin (Abun) the father lived a generation and a half after R. Eleazar. As already recognized by R. David Fraenckel (Qorban Ha`edah ad loc.) one must read “R. Eleazar bar Abinna”, a third generation Galilean Amora.: If it can be joined to what is not of its kind, so much more of its own kind<sup>39</sup>If the verse implies that spots classified as s´et and “shiny spot” are to be combined then certainly a shiny spot and one of lesser intensity are one and the same.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, it is not written “they will be” but “it will be”. This teaches that they cannot be joined one to the other<sup>40</sup>This contradicts everything we know from parallel sources, in particular the otherwise exact parallel in Sifra Tazria`, Parašat Nega`im, Pereq 1(4) which reads מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהֵן מִצְטָֽרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה “this teaches that they can be joined one to the other.” Already D. Fraenckel in the 18th Century recognized that under the influence of Greek the h sound was lost and there was no difference in sound between שֶׁהֵן and שֶׁאֵין.. Ḥizqiah stated: It is not written “skin diseases” but “skin disease”. This teaches that they cannot<sup>41</sup>Again, read “they can”. Since the verse mentions three different diseases, the singular implies that for matters of purity all three are one. be joined one to the other.” <sup>42</sup>A second version of the discussion between R. Aqiba and his son, not recorded elsewhere.“He said to him, they could have said ‘starting with eggshell and stronger it is impure’ but should not have said, ‘there are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds.’ He answered him, it teaches that they are not one superior to the other.<sup>43</sup>One cannot say that the color of fresh snow, which is blinding in bright sunlight, is the same as eggshell, but that for the rules of impurity both are equal and the relation of the color of snow to whitewash is equal to the relation between eggwhite and white (unbleached) wool.” Could they not be one superior to the other? If you say so, you would have said the darkened one is impure, the very darkened is impure. But the Torah said, behold, the diseased spot darkened<sup>44</sup>Lev. 13:6. Since even for a darkened spot there are conditions which have to be satisfied before the sufferer from skin disease is declared pure, it follows that the change of color alone is not sufficient.. The darkened one is impure but the very much darkened is pure. <sup>45</sup>Babli 6b. It follows what Rebbi Ḥanina said, it is comparable to two kings and their two lieutenants<sup>46</sup>ὕπαρχος, lieutenant, proconsul, legatus, the second in command. The decreasing order of brightness is snow, eggshell, whitewash, white wool.. One king is greater then the other king, one lieutenant is greater than the other lieutenant. But the first one’s lieutenant is not greater than the other king. Samuel said, it is comparable to two kings and two of their ambassadors<sup>47</sup>He thinks that the secondary colors are much darker than the primary ones.. One king is greater then the other king, one ambassador is greater than the other ambassador. But the first one’s ambassador is not greater than the other king. Rebbi Ḥanina in the name of Rav (Aḥa) [Ada]<sup>48</sup>The reading in parenthesis is that of the ms., the one in brackets that of G. While Rav Ada bar Aḥawa (in the Babli Rav Ada bar Ahavah) is well attested to in both Talmudim, a Rav Aḥa bar Aḥawa is not otherwise known. bar Aḥawa: A king, and his army commander, and the Arghabeṭa<sup>49</sup>Probably the high Sassanid official mentioned in Greek sources as ἀργαπέτης, a Persion word “commander of a fort.”. The word is discussed at length by Geiger in Additamenta ad librum Aruch Completum, pp. 27b–28b. and the Head of the Captivity. Rebbi Eleasar ben Rebbi Yose said before Rebbi Yose: The Mishnah implies that one is no greater than the other. If s´et whose very darkened spot is pure has a second color, the shiny spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, certainly will have a second color. He answered him, look at what you are saying. It has a second degree; should it not also have a third<sup>50</sup>The problem is what combines with what for impurity. It is clear from the biblical text that the spots in the original color combine, also that baheret and s´et combine. If one would establish a hierarchy of brightness as the parables indicate and s´et was less than baheret, a combination of baheret with its secondary color would be a combination of degrees 1 and 3, which we had excluded by a previous argument. Therefore s´et and baheret must be coordinate, not subordinate.? What causes you to say that the very white spot, whose very darkened spot is impure, is the s´et? The kind of s´et is like eggshell. <sup>51</sup>Sifra Tazria`, Parašat Nega`im, Pereq 1(4). A parallel text from another source is in the Babli, 6b.“שְׂאֵ֤ת, this is s´et. בַהֶ֔רֶת, this is the shiny spot. סַפַּ֨חַת֙ is secondary to the shiny spot. [The diseased spot’s] look is deepened<sup>52</sup>Lev. 13:3., secondary to s´et. What is the etymology of s´et? Elevated. As the shadow looks elevated compared to the sunny spot. What is the etymology of deepened? It is deep, as the sunny spot looks depressed compared to the shadow. What is the etymology of סַפַּ֨חַת֙? Adjunct. As it is said, adjoin me please to one of the priesthoods<sup>53</sup>1S. 2:36., etc.” Rebbi Eleazar said, these are the words of Rebbi Ismael and Rebbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that s´et and the shiny spot are one. Sappaḥat is secondary to either one<sup>54</sup>Since the word is placed between the two expressions.. The Mishnah says so: “Mispaḥat is turned into s´et or strong mispaḥat.<sup>55</sup>Mishnah Nega`im 7:2. מִסְפַּחַת is biblical equivalent of סַפַּחַת (Lev. 13:6,7) used both for impure and pure spots, thereby validating the distinction between deeper and much deeper colors.”