פירוש על ויקרא 13:60

AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON. Because it is according to the word of the priest that every strife and every plague shall be,⁴⁶Deuteronomy 21:5. The following is the law of plagues or leprosy, which is the subject of the coming sections: “All are qualified to inspect the leprosy-signs, but only a priest may pronounce them impure or pure” (Negaim 3:1). If the priest was unskilled in these laws, a learned person would tell him to say “pure” or “impure” (ibid.). — It should also be pointed out that while tzara’ath is generally translated as “leprosy” and as such represents a physical disarray in the body of the person, in Jewish tradition it also carries with it a moral and spiritual meaning as illumined further on by Ramban in Verse 47. therefore this communication came also to Aaron. Or it may mean that G-d spoke to Moses that he should tell it to Aaron, as our Rabbis have explained.⁴⁷Mechilta, at beginning. It does not state here, “speak unto the children of Israel,”⁴⁸As it says in the case of the offerings (above, 1:2, and elsewhere). because it is the priests [who have the duty] when they see the impure [with leprosy] to force them to be quarantined and be cleansed. Now in the section dealing with cleansing of the leper it says, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing,⁴⁹Further, 14:1-2. [and there it mentions neither “speak to the children of Israel,” nor to the priests], because there is no need to urge the Israelite to become cleansed [when his plague of leprosy is healed], nor to urge the priest to perform the rites of the offerings, as they do so willingly. In the section dealing with a person suffering from an issue it does say, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,⁵⁰Ibid., 15:2. because since the matter is of an intimate nature, unknown to others, He admonished them that they should each inform the priest of their sickness.⁵¹In view of the fact that decisions of purity and impurity in cases where a man or woman saw a flux was not dependent upon the pronouncement of the priest, unlike the law in cases of leprosy (see Note 46 above), Ramban’s words must be understood in the following sense: Since the priest has occasion to perform the Service in the Sanctuary, and even when he is outside it, he may eat terumah (the heave-offering), which he is forbidden to eat when impure, therefore the Israelite who is suffering from a flux and thus rendered impure must let the priest know of his condition, so that he should not be defiled on account of him. See my Hebrew commentary, Vol. II, p. 534 (beginning with the fifth edition).

אל משה ואל ואהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron;” Nachmanides writes that seeing the Torah had stated that Aaron would have a decisive voice in all matters pertaining to interpersonal strife or afflictions such as נגעים, be it on the skin, garments, or houses, G’d addressed him also in the following legislation. (Compare Deut. 21,5) The Torah does not continue here with the customary words: דבר אל בני ישראל, “say to the Children of Israel,” seeing that the priests after seeing the people afflicted will decide whether to declare them afflicted with the disease, whether to temporarily keep them under observation, etc. It is also up to the priest to decide when individuals will be considered as cured from the disease. There is no apparent reason to acquaint and warn the entire nation of the forthcoming legislation, seeing that if the services of the priest are required, and sacrifices are to be offered, the afflicted party will be only too happy to have reached that stage. The reason that in the paragraph dealing with the zav, the person who experiences a disease involving his sexual organs the Torah does address every Israelite, i.e. “speak to the Children of Israel and say to them, etc.,” (chapter 15) is that the nature of the disease is private, and the person suffering from it could conceal it, as opposed to people whose skin bears the marks of their disease. The general public had to be warned that if they suffered from the symptoms described that they had to turn to the priest to deal with the problem.

אל משה ואל אהרן, “to Moses and to Aaron.” The reason why Aaron has been mentioned here is that it is he, i.e. the priests, who decides if to declare the afflicted person as suffering from tzoraat or not. He decides who is ritually pure and who is not.

'שאת או ספחת וגו‎ — These are the names of leprous plagues — A RISING, A SCAB etc., — and they are the one whiter than the other (cf. Shevuot 5b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 4).

SE’EITH O SAPACHATH O BAHERETH’ (A RISING, OR A SCAB, OR A BRIGHT SPOT). “These are the names of the plagues, each one whiter than the other.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “se’eith is a term for ‘burning,’ the word being associated with the expressions: ‘v’hamaseith’ (and the beacon) began to arise up;⁵²Judges 20:40. ‘va’yisa’eim’ (and) David (burned them).⁵³II Samuel 5:21. It is possible that it is called se’eith [literally: ‘uprising,’ ‘swelling’], because it is in the nature of fire to rise upwards. Sapachath is of the root: ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray;⁵⁴I Samuel 2:36. ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob⁵⁵Isaiah 14:1. — signifying a sickness which attaches to one place. Bahereth is of the root, ‘bahir’ (bright) in the skies,⁵⁶Job 37:21. becoming a sort of sign or mark.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.] If so, the term se’eith is the name of the plague caused by the bitter green burning fluid [in the body],⁵⁷See in Seder Vayikra Note 264. and bahereth is caused by the white fluid, and sapachath is brought about by a combination of both of these fluids. Now our Rabbis have said:⁵⁸Shebuoth 6 b. “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’ and so it is stated in Scripture, And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills ‘hanisa’oth’ (that are lifted up),⁵⁹Isaiah 2:14. and sapachath always means ‘attachment,’⁶⁰This means as follows: The two principal colors of leprosy-sign are bahereth and se’eith. To each of these two colors Scripture has added a sapachath — a second shade of it. Thus the number of colors is four. See further, Notes 105 and 107, for the precise nature of these colors and their gradations. and so it is stated in Scripture, ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray.”⁵⁴I Samuel 2:36.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, generally, such phenomena occur when one did not purify oneself from the effects of having had sexual relations or direct contact with the seed of a menstruating woman.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, when a person shall have in the skin of his flesh a rising or a scab, etc. We have to explain this verse in a similar vein to the statement in Baba Metzia 114 on Numbers 19,14: "you are called אדם, whereas the title אדם is never applied to Gentiles, for the Gentiles are not susceptible to the impurity resulting from the various skin-diseases enumerated in our Parshah." This statement, attributed to the prophet Elijah, is proof that the clothing of Gentiles afflicted with these נגעים, stains mentioned in our chapter, does not confer impurity on Jews in contact with them as we have learned at the beginning of the eleventh chapter of the tractate נגעים.

אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו, none of the verse in the chapters following may be interpreted in the way he sound when read superficially as the phenomena described do not correspond to any skin diseases we are familiar with, and are not subject to medical treatment. What applies to the human skin applies in the same degree to stains on clothing which are described her as well as to manifestations of “mildew” or something similar breaking forth from the walls of houses. The only criteria which we can apply to what is spelled out in these chapters 12-15 are those laid down by our sages of the Midrash, the Talmud, etc, all of which date back to the instructions received orally from Moses.

שאת או ספחת, “different degrees of whiteness of the skin.” Ibn Ezra understands the word שאת as a derivative of שרפה, as in והמשאות החלה לעלות עמוד עשן, “and when the column of smoke began to rise” (Judges 20,40) Similarly, we have in Samuel II 5,21 וישאם דוד, “and David burned them (the idols).” Nachmanides explains that it is possible that this skin disease is called such on account of what it has in common with fire, which rises into the atmosphere. The skin inflammation described breaks through the regular skin, outwards, i.e. upwards. The word ספחת is understood as related to ספחני נא, (Samuel I 2,36) where it means “gather me in,” in our context in the sense of the disease being concentrated in one narrowly defined part of the skin. The word בהרת is related to בהיר, very bright, blindingly white, (Job 37,21) where it describes the sun though bright, or because too bright) as invisible to man. The נגע, skin affliction, is assumed to originate in the greenish coloured gall. שאת is the name of the affliction, after it has already traversed the body and come to the surface of the skin. The Torah is perceived as desiring the purity of the Israelites in every respect, both in body and in spirit, and by externalizing sickness of the body’s interior it alerts the victim that something is wrong that needs to be repaired, needs to be attended to, seeing that any disease is not a natural state and a perfectly pure person is not afflicted with any disease. Even the symptoms described in our verse here are not yet a definitive disease, they are signs that a disease is on the way to develop more fully. To indicate this, the Torah at the outset speaks of נגע צרעת, meaning that this נגע is liable to develop into a fully blown צרעת unless addressed properly. Verse 11 describes the fully developed נגע simply as צרעת, the affliction having developed beyond the need for, or beyond the ability of a trial ostracism reversing the symptoms. Whenever a stage is reached which will ultimately result in צרעת, the priest has to declare the afflicted party as ritually impure with all that this implies as described in the verse following.

A Scriptural decree. Rashi’s view is so because it is written nearby: “He shall be brought to Aharon, the kohein, or to one of his sons, the kohanim.” Why does it need to say, “one”? Also, Scripture does not need to write, “of his sons, the kohanim,” but rather only: “Or to his sons.” Thus, “one” comes to include even a non-kohein, [in the case] that the kohein was ignorant of Torah law he may show [the signs] to a man who knows [the laws of] signs of impurity, although he is a non-kohein. And that which it is written afterwards, “of his sons the kohanim” is to teach that although the kohein does not know the signs of impurity, and needs to show [them] to a Torah scholar who may not be a kohein, nevertheless, the Torah scholar is not allowed to say: This is a sign of impurity or this is a sign of purity. Rather, he must teach the kohein the laws of impurity and purity so that the kohein will tell the person who has the skin-eruption: You are pure or impure. Upon this Rashi explains: “It is a Scriptural decree...”

אדם, a person, i.e. man or woman, minor, male or female.

בהרת means SPOTS, taie in O. F. — Similar is (Job 37:21) “It is a spot (בהיר) in the skies”.

שאת או ספחת או בהרת, different skin afflictions, the common denominator being that they are of different shades of white. We base ourselves on the oral tradition as spelled out in Nega-im 1,1. None of these phenomena correspond to the skin diseases we read about in medical text books. Such phenomena as are mentioned in these textbooks do not result in the afflicted person being considered ritually impure, nor are they subject to the priest deciding if indeed the symptoms require isolation of the afflicted person and when such symptoms can be declared as having disappeared. According to Berachot 5 the only skin afflictions which may be viewed as G’d’s reminder to improve our lifestyle are the four kinds mentioned in our chapter. While they are not classified as afflictions revealing G’d’s love for the person thus afflicted, they are however, described as מזבח כפרה, as “an altar serving as stepping stone to atonement for the character weakness that the afflicted person has to overcome.” G’d does not employ any other medically well known skin diseases as His instrument to call us to order for various sins committed. והובא, anyone who goes to a place to be attended to is not referred to as “coming,” בא, but as being brought, i.e. הובא. Compare Psalms 45,15. The passive mode of the transitive form והגישו אדוניו in Exodus 21,6 is ונגשו אל המשפט, “he his being brought to.”

כי יהיה בעור בשרו, according to tradition, a reference to a skin irregularity on the skin of (surrounding) the beard or the head. Compare verse 29. The Torah had to use the expression

כי יהיה בעור בשרו, which he will have on the skin of his flesh, etc; the Torah informs us here that only the skin of Israelites afflicted with this disease is affected. The disease does not penetrate below the skin. This is a principal difference between Israelites and Gentiles; the latter are perceived as afflicted with this disease through and through. Their entire being is perceived as being part of the צרעת syndrome. If an Israelite has committed a sin which results in נגע צרעת, the skin afflictions mentioned in this chapter, it is visible only on his exterior not on his flesh and certainly not his soul, personality.

בעור בשרו, “on the skin of his flesh;” as will be explained in greater deal forthwith, i.e. an eczema either on his head or his beard. (compare verse 20) at this point the Torah had to mention the skin of his flesh;

'אל אהרון וגו‎ [HE SHALL BE BROUGHT] TO AARON etc. — It is an enactment of Scripture that the uncleanness and purification of leprous plagues are pronounced only by the mouth of a priest (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 1 9).

שאת to describe an elevation of the skin in the area afflicted. This is not an actual elevation but an optical impression, i.e. it is not as white as for instance בהרת. We know that בהרת represents the highest purest degree of the colour “white.” This is clear from Job 37,21 בהיר הוא בשחקים, ”although it is brilliantly bright in the sky.” This colour described as שאת is somewhat עמוקה, “deeper,” in the sense of “a lower degree of” בהרת the most brilliant kind of white.

Our sages in Erchin 3 explain the word אדם as meaning that even a baby can be afflicted with the disease related here as babies too qualified for the term אדם. Women too are included as the Torah refers to man and woman combined as אדם in Genesis 5,8.

שאת, an elevation of the skin; when looked at in the shade it appears to the onlooker as if higher that the skin exposed to the sun.

ספחת, a word which is subordinate to שאת,or subordinate to the word בהרת.[something subject to disagreement in Negai-im. Ed.] This is based on Samuel I 2,36 ספחני אל אחת הכהונות “please assign me to one of the priestly duties.” Clearly, the word is used in a subordinate mode

Torat Kohanim adds that the reason the Torah chose the expression בעור בשרו, the skin of his flesh, instead of merely בעורו, on his skin, is to include the skin on which hair does not grow. We are not to think that only skin with follicles, i.e. capable of producing hair, is included here. [the Torah features the colour of hair surrounding these skin blemishes, and it was therefore reasonable to assume that only those patches of hair are subject to this legislation. Ed.] As it is, if a white hair grew in an area normally devoid of hair, the legislation in this chapter applies. Nonetheless the white spot on the skin has to precede the appearance of the hair before this legislation can apply. If an old man or an albino who normally has white hair, first develops the symptoms on the skin described here and a white hair makes its appearance subsequently, it is doubtful if such a person is considered afflicted seeing the hair did not turn white as a result of the condition of the skin surrounding it. On the other hand, the progression of the symptoms conforms to what is written in the Torah. We are unable to determine with certainty that the hair grew white from the source as at the time the person appears before the priest we only see the ultimate result and do not know whether the hair grew black and immediately turned white. Tossaphot in Niddah 19 feel that the bright spot on the skin, בהרת, is presumed to have caused the hair to turn white. At any rate, such a situation is one which is known in הלכה as ספק טומאה, a state of doubtful impurity.

ספחת, an adjective describing the nouns שאת or בהרת. There are subcategories to both שאת and בהרת. An example of nouns that have such adjectives of varying degrees is found in Samuel I 1,37: ספחני נא אל אחת הכהונות, “please attach me to one of the priestly duties.” [Descendants of the High Priest Eli, who had been condemned to become beggars. Ed.]

לנגע צרעת, the area where the affliction surfaces is white skin as we know from Exodus 4,6 מצורעת כשלג, “encrusted with snowy white scales.” As we know snow is white.

שאת או ספחת, a rising or a scab; we are taught in Nega-im 1,1 that the meaning of the word ספחת is a kind of שאת, a whiteness which is a shade darker than that of בהרת, as the colour of שאת is similar to clean wool and similar in whiteness to the whitewash used in the Temple. Even though the expression ספחת occurs in the Torah only in our verse, the same rule is true for a lower degree of whiteness of בהרת which is the whitest of whites, similar to snow in colour. The verse ought to be understood as if the Torah had written: שאת או ספחת, או בהרת וספחתה.

He shall be brought to Aharon, the kohein. His purification is only by means of a kohein because Aharon’s descendents have three good character traits that are the opposite of these: 1) The sin of lashon hara causes arguments and a separation between fellow men. Therefore he is healed by Aharon, who exemplifies the trait of peace, for Aharon was “a lover of peace who pursued peace.” 2) Similarly, the sin of haughtiness of spirit is rectified by Aharon who was extremely humble, as Chazal said: What is written concerning Moshe and Aharon is even greater than that which is written concerning Avraham, because by Avraham it says, “I am dust and ashes” whereas by Moshe and Aharon it says, “What are we?” 3) Also, Aharon did not have the negative character trait of lust for money, since the kohanim did not have an inheritance in the Land and only had what they were given from “Hashem’s Table” [the Divine Service in the Beis HaMikdash]. Therefore, they perfected the trait of being satisfied with little and were not at all close to the trait of miserliness, in which one’s entire goal is to amass huge sums of money.

לנגע צרעת, “to the plague (similar to) leprosy;” the are of this affliction is white looking flesh. Compare Exodus 4,6 מצרעת כשלג, “an eczema white as snow.” It is also written: ומראה הנגע עמוק לבן, “the appearance of the eczema is a deep white.” (Source not found)

We need to understand why the Torah mentioned שאת before it mentioned בהרת, seeing the latter is whiter than שאת, in fact unmatched by anything else in whiteness? Why did the Torah not give us a list of degrees of white in a descending order? We believe that if the Torah had commenced by describing the whitest possible kind of skin-affliction, i.e. בהרת first, and had mentioned the word ספחת later, I could not have derived that שאת also may occur in shades of a secondary degree of whiteness which is part of its category and is called ספחת דשאת. Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או ספחת או שאת, I would have concluded that there are only three categories of the colour white which form a נגע צרעת instead of there being four such categories (2 of them being sub-categories). Even if the Torah had written: בהרת או שאת או ספחת, I would not have known that there is an additional category called ספחת הבהרת, seeing the word appeared only at the end of the sequence. As it is, it is impossible to overlook the fact that the Torah wanted us to know that ספחת is both a sub-category of שאת as well as a sub-category of בהרת.

והובא אל אהרן הכהן, “he is to be brought to Aaron the Priest.” Even against his will, if necessary.או אל אחד מבניו, “or to one of his sons,” even if they are deformed to the degree that they cannot perform sacrificial service in the Temple.

Erchin 15 explains that these afflictions are a penalty for people who have spoken ill of their fellow man. Maimonides explains this in greater detail in the seventh chapter of his Hilchot Deyot. This is what he writes: "A person is guilty of the sin of לשון הרע, a wicked tongue, when he tells something detrimental to the image of this fellow man even though he speaks the truth. If he tells lies about his fellow man he is guilty of the sin of מוציא שם רע, bad-mouthing another human being." We see therefore that one is called בעל לשון הרע, even if one tells the truth about someone, whereas one is called מוציא שם רע when the evil gossip one spreads has no basis in fact. The Torah therefore describes two different categories of skin afflictions, one to be applied to people guilty of לשון הרע, i.e. בהרת, the other to be applied to people guilty of מוציא שם רע, described by the Torah as שאת.The reason the Torah chose the term שאת as an allusion to people guilty of מוציא שם רע is because the Torah said in Exodus 23,1: "do not utter a falsehood." The word בהרת aptly describes someone who engages in לשון הרע, as the word describes something which is the brightest of bright, i.e. true. Although such a person speaks the truth, what he has done is despicable. The sub-categories of which the Torah speaks may be regarded as alluding to the verbiage which surrounds the basic detrimental information which the respective guilty party tries to convey conversationally.

אחד, the letter א has the vowel patach.

והיה לנגע… צרעת, and it will turn into a skin-afliction. Inasmuch as the most important factor determining the impurity resulting from what is and what is not a נגע צרעת is revealed by the colour of certain hairs and not by the colour of the skin alone, the Torah uses the expression צרעת independent of mention of any hair. The word והיה, "it will be," alludes to the fact that what determines if we are dealing with a נגע צרעת has yet to occur.

הכהנים, “the priests;” excluding priests who have defiled themselves by committing certain sins deliberately, so that they have lost their status permanently. How do we know that all the Israelites are included? Answer: from the words “or one of,” which includes anyone who is a member of the Jewish people. If so, what is the point of the Torah having written: “from among his sons the priests?” It is to teach you that only the priests can give a ruling concerning ritual purity and ritual impurity. Not even the Supreme Court can do so. Are then all priests experts by birth? The system works as follows: When the problem of tzoraat arises, someone who has studied the subject is consulted. The priest accepts the superior knowledge of this expert, and makes his ruling based on what he has been told by the expert who has examined the afflicted person. It is irrelevant whether the priest is truly familiar or not with the symptoms the Torah has taught us.

הפך לבן [THE HAIR …] IS TURNED WHITE — This means that at first it was dark, and it turned white within the plague. The smallest number of hairs implied by the term שער is two (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 2 2).

AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE PLAGUE BE DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH. “Every white color appears deep [in contrast to the darker color surrounding it], just as a color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow.” This is Rashi’s language. For this reason when the Rabbi [Rashi] reached the following verse, stating, And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,⁶¹Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). he wrote, “I do not know the meaning of this.” The sense of Rashi’s statement is as follows: It appeared to him difficult, for since the bright spot is white, it is impossible that the appearance thereof should not be deeper than the skin, even as the color of anything illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow!
Now we are in a position to remove this difficulty. For the verses do not speak of the appearance of a plague seeming deeper than the skin, unless two hairs in the plague become white [such being the case in Verse 3 before us]. But when it states [as it does in the following verse], and the hair thereof be not turned white, it says, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin.⁶¹Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). For such is the distinctive characteristic of anything illuminated by the sun: if there is something black scattered about in it, there will not be an appearance of depth to a person who looks at it. Now hair in its natural state is dark, and therefore destroys the appearance of depth of the plague. When the hairs in the plague have turned white or yellow,⁶²Further, Verse 30. then only does the whiteness of the plague shine brightly, and appears to anyone who looks at it from a distance as if it were deeper [than the skin of the flesh].
Yet despite all this, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] has said — “Every white color is deeper [in contrast to dark colors surrounding it]” — does not appear to me to be correct. For the Rabbis have said:⁵⁸Shebuoth 6 b. “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’” and the se’eith is white, as it is written, ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),⁶³Ibid., Verse 10. and the Rabbis have further said:⁶⁴Shebuoth 5 b. “Se’eith is [as white] as white wool, and its second [subsidiary] shade is as white as the membrane of an egg.” Thus se’eith is very white, and [according to Rashi] it should appear very deep, so why then do the Rabbis call it “rising?” Scripture also does not state anywhere concerning the color of se’eith that it is deeper than the skin!⁶⁵Further in Verses 19-20 Scripture states: And in the place of the boil there is ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising) or ‘bahereth’ (a bright spot) … and the priest shall look; and behold, if the appearance thereof be ‘shaphal’ (lower) than the skin. Now the word shaphal (lower) refers obviously to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned before. But according to Rashi, Ramban asks, why does it not state concerning the color of se’eith that it is ‘amok min ha’or’ (“deeper” than the skin) instead of “lower” than the skin, when, as Rashi put it, “Every white color is ‘deeper’ [in contrast to the black surrounding it]?” And here too (in Verse 3 before us) it merely says that the appearance of ‘the plague’ be deeper, but it does not say so about the se’eith! And in the Torah Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁶Torath Kohanim Tazria, Negaim 1:4. “What is the meaning of the term se’eith? It is ‘rising,’ just as the color of the shadow is higher than that of anything illuminated by the sun.” And if every white color is deep [in contrast to a dark color surrounding it, as Rashi put it], then the fact is the opposite [of what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim]! Perhaps we may say that the terms se’eith signifies “rising” in contrast to bahereth, so that if you place both of them together, the bahereth will appear as if illuminated by the sun, and the se’eith at its side will have the appearance of the shadow, while both of them in relation to the skin [which is darker] will appear as deeper.⁶⁷Thus we have explained the saying of the Rabbis that se’eith signifies “rising,” for it is only in contrast to bahereth which is bright-white like snow, that the duller color of se’eith appears “higher.” Thus there is no contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and that which Rashi said, that “Every white color is deep etc.,” since the above interpretation of the Rabbis concerning se’eith was with reference to a contrast of a still brighter color. It still remains to explain why Scripture does not speak of se’eith as appearing “deeper” than the skin, but instead speaks of it as being “lower” than the skin (see Note 65 above). This point Ramban will now proceed to explain. Yet Scripture [nonetheless] does not speak of the color of se’eith as being deeper than the skin!
The explanation of this matter appears to me to be as follows. There is a kind of white which shines into and dazzles the eyes just as the appearance of the sun does, with the result that the eyes are incapable of receiving the intense color of that whiteness, and therefore it seems to him [a person looking] as if it were deep, just as the color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow, because the eye can receive the darker color and it is fixed thereon, whereas the white color scatters the visionary power and appears further removed from it, and therefore seems to be deep. Thus the whiteness of bahereth which is a bright white like snow,⁶⁸Negaim 1:1. causes the visionary power to be weakened, just as it becomes weak in a place illuminated by the sun, provided that there is no black hair in the bahereth, in which case the visionary power concentrates on the black and from there it spreads out to the whole appearance of the plague and does not “flee” from it [on account of its intense whiteness, and therefore it does not appear to be deeper than the skin].⁶⁹This explains Verse 4 which states: And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin — on which Rashi had commented, “I do not know the meaning of this,” for the reason explained above. Ramban explains it on the basis of physical laws of nature, that since the verse continues to state, and the hair thereof be not turned white, therefore the visionary power of the eye concentrates on the black hair, and from there it spreads forth to the white plague, and consequently the whiteness does not appear deeper than the skin. Now the plague known as se’eith is also white, but its whiteness is not intense [as that of bahereth]⁷⁰The color of se’eith, as mentioned above, is as white as white wool. and it does not weaken the visionary power; therefore the eye spreads out [over the whole plague] and sees it closely with the result that the se’eith appears near to it and elevated, just as when one looks at the stars which appear to be high in the heavens.
Now in the case of an inflammation [in the skin, in which symptoms of leprosy occurred], Scripture mentions two colors, a white ‘se’eith’ (rising) or a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot)⁷¹Further, Verse 19. intermingled with red, and states concerning it, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin⁷²Ibid., Verse 20. At this point Ramban interprets the phrase quoted as referring back to both se’eith and bahereth. Further on he will explain it as referring only to bahereth. See further, Note 73. but does not say “deeper” [than the skin], because although that bahereth is an intense white, the redness in it lessens the “depth” thereof and makes it appear only slightly “lower” [than the skin].
But by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the phrase behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin only refers back to the bahereth, but of the white se’eith’ (rising⁷¹Further, Verse 19. it does not say so.⁷³For since Ramban has explained above that it is not in the nature of every form of white to appear deeper than the skin [unlike Rashi who stated categorically, “Every white color is deep etc.,” as a result of which Rashi found it difficult to explain the phrase in Verse 4: and the appearance thereof be ‘not’ deeper than the skin, as mentioned above] and since se’eith is only as white as white wool, unlike the bahereth which is bright-white like snow, therefore Scripture does not speak of it as appearing “lower” than the skin. Instead, the phrase, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin (Verse 20) refers back only to the white bahereth. It is only according to Rashi who wrote that “Every white color appears deeper etc.” that the phrase in Verse 20, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ etc. refers back to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned in Verse 19. And concerning both of them [se’eith and bahereth] Scripture says [in the case of an inflammation in the skin], But behold, if there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim,⁷⁴Verse 21. for on account of the redness [which is intermingled in the white], and the blackness of the hair, the plague has lost even its appearance of being “lower” [than the skin] and is only “dim.”
In the case of a burning by fire Scripture mentions, and the quick flesh of the burnt part have a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), reddish-white or white,⁷⁵Verse 24. and then it continues [in the following verse] to state, and it be in sight ‘deeper’ than the skin;⁷⁶Verse 25. [that refers back only] to “the white” [in the preceding verse, but not to the reddish-white, which, as explained above, does not appear to be “deeper” than the skin]. Then it states further on, But if the priest look on it, and behold, there be no white hair in the ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), and it be no lower than the skin.⁷⁷Verse 26. In this case He mentioned the matter of being “lower” or not with reference [also] to “the reddish-white” [in Verse 24], thus teaching that the appearance of the plague either as “deep” or “low” is an indication of impurity, and that they are only pure if there is no appearance at all [of the bright spot] being “lower” than the skin, but instead it is only “dim.”⁷⁸And if the ‘bahereth’ (bright spot) stay in its place … but it be dim … the priest shall pronounce him clean (Verse 28).
Now the Torah desired the purity of Israel and the cleanliness of their bodies, and it therefore took measures to keep this sickness [of leprosy] far from them at its very inception, for these colors [of the plagues] are not yet the real leprosy, but they lead to it. Doctors state in their books: “We should fear beharoth [bright spots in the skin of the flesh] more than the leprosy itself.” That is the reason why Scripture calls them when they are just beginning, the affliction of leprosy,⁷⁹Verses 2, 3, 9, etc. meaning an affliction of a leprous nature, but not yet the actual leprosy. It is when the symptoms of impurity are clearly identified, after the leper has been put in quarantine [for a trial period], that Scripture says, it is leprosy⁸⁰Verse 8. meaning that it is possible that it is a genuine form of leprosy. At times Scripture will say of impurity, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction of leprosy,⁸¹Verse 25. the meaning thereof being to state that the priest shall declare him impure at once, for it is an affliction of a leprous nature that will surely result in actual leprosy, and therefore it is advisable that he be separated from the people from that moment on. Similarly, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction,⁸²Verse 22. means that it is a great affliction which will not be healed [easily], but instead will grow the whole day and spread [into the skin] as it has done till now.
As to that which Rashi stated [in Verse 3 before us] that: “It is a Scriptural ordinance [the reason of which is not known] that hair that has become white is a symptom of impurity” — this is the interpretation of the thing;⁸³Daniel 5:26. it is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon⁸⁴Ibid., 4:21. that person, for a plague which does not turn the hair white, is only an ugly spot in the skin, but not a secretion which will cause any sickness.

נגע צרעת היא. The Torah repeats this same expression twice in successive verses, and also the expression צרעת היא is repeated both in verse 8 and verse 11. Sometimes, as here and as in verse 22, the word נגע is added. The reason may be that this affliction, in common with other afflictions, is something that develops in stages. Just as the affliction intensifies gradually in its early stages, so it gradually becomes weaker on the way to healing. When it is already a long-standing affliction it is referred to as צרעת יושנת, whereas when it is in its opening stages it is called simply נגע. When it is a fully fledged affliction it is called נגע צרעת. When it is in the process of waning it is already referred to as נרפא הצרעת, an affliction which has healed. When it has healed completely it is referred to as נרפא הנתק. Seeing that this type of affliction is perceived as a warning signal from G’d to the individual experiencing it, i.e. he is reminded to get rid of negative characteristics, the Talmud refers to it as מזבח כפרה “an altar serving as atonement.” The period of isolation serves to remind the afflicted person to review what he may have been guilty of. This concept has been spelled out in Job 36,10 as ויגל אותם למוסר ויאמר כי ישובון מאון, “He opens their understanding by discipline, and orders them back from mischief.”

ומראה הנגע, and the appearance of the affliction, etc. Here we come face to face with the mystical dimension of Psalms 39,7: "man walks about as a mere shadow;" the Psalmist refers to the appearance of raw flesh. When the forces of evil assert themselves in man this makes a visible impression on his flesh. The healthy appearance of his skin disappears. It appears that there is something physically missing, i.e. the skin appears as "deep," as having lost its normal surface. It is remarkable that according to הלכה, one is not ritually impure if this condition covers the entire body, i.e. if this "deepness" leaves no visible mark seeing we cannot detect a contrast with other skin or flesh (compare Shevuot 7).

ומראה הנגע עמוק, white.

וראה הכהן את הנגע, “The priest shall look at the skin disorder, etc.” We are taught in Negaim 1,4 that the priest must not inspect the symptoms for the first time on the first day of the week as it will be necessary to isolate the afflicted person for seven days. Seeing that the Torah writes in verse six that the priest is to inspect the symptoms again on the seventh day and it is not permitted to do son on the Sabbath, this means that the first inspection must not take place on Sunday. By the same token, the first inspection must not take place on a Monday as in the event a third inspection is necessary, the second time the seventh day would occur on the Sabbath. This is why the sages said that when the Torah speaks about 2 weeks (a second series of seven days) this means that the seventh day is counted as part of either week, i.e. the two weeks actually comprise only thirteen days.

Within the skin-eruption. That which Rashi explains: “Within the skin-eruption” is to tell you that you should not think “has turned white” [means] if there is a white hair near the skin-eruption it is a sign of impurity. Therefore, he explains that only when it is within the skin-eruption. Also, you should not say that if it turned white before he has a skin-eruption it would be a sign of impurity, therefore, he explains: “Within the skin-eruption.” Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Since it is written in Scripture: “In the skin-eruption” — to say that only if the skin-eruption preceded the white hair, but if the white hair preceded the skin-eruption it is pure, hear from this that sometimes a hair can turn white even without a skin-eruption. If so, when the hair turns white within the skin-eruption it will not be impure, for perhaps it did not turn white due to the plague, maybe it was a some coincidence that it turned [white]. Thus, with regard to this Rashi explains: “The minimum [amount of] hair is two.” Since two hairs turned white, it is surely because of the plague and not a coincidence, for any matter [that occurs] in multiplicity is not a coincidence.

ושער בנגע הפך לבן, “and the hair in the stricken area has turned from black to white.” This is a sign that the affliction has become stronger and the afflicted area attacks the healthy flesh surrounding it. Elderly people experience that their hair turns white as time progresses. However, if the hair had turned white already before the area had been declared as a נגע צרעת, white hair is not a sign of ritual impurity, seeing the change in colour had not been related to the skin’s discolouration. This is what our sages had in mind when they said: “when baheret precedes the manifestation of white hair this is a sign that the person is ritually contaminated; if not, he is ritually pure.” (Sifra)

עמק מעור בשרו [THE PLAGUE] IS DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH — Every white colour is deep (in contrast to a dark colour surrounding it) just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (Shevuot 6b).

The minimum [amount of] hair is two. I do not know how the Rabbis knew that שער indicates a multiplicity of hairs, etc. (Re’m). See Tosafos Yom Tov, Negaim (4:1).

וראהו הכהן וטמא אותו, and when the priest takes a look at him he will declare him ritually impure. The Torah made the impurity conditional on the priest declaring him so. This reminds us of a statement in Shabbat 119 that two angels accompany a person on his way home from the synagogue on Friday nights and they examine if this person had made the preparations for the Sabbath prior to going to the synagogue. If he did, one angel commends him (the 'good' angel) exclaiming "may you continue to do so," whereas the second angel [who represents man's negative actions Ed.] says "Amen." The reverse happens when the person in question had not made preparations for the Sabbath before the onset of the Sabbath. At any rate, the Talmud suggests that once a positive or negative momentum has been built it feeds upon itself unless something contrary happens. Seeing that it is the priest's duty to obtain atonement for Israel from their impurities, diseases, etc., G'd has commanded him to concur with the judgment of impurity the afflicted person has been subjected to. This state of impurity will continue until the afflicted person turns into a penitent when G'd will remove the symptoms of impurity from him.

וטמא אתו HE SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — He (the priest) shall say to him. “Thou art unclean” — for it is an enactment of Scripture that hair that has become white is a symptom of uncleanness.

As the appearance of the sun. [Rashi knows this] because it is written, “and the appearance of the plague [is deeper]...” which implies that the appearance is deeper than his flesh and not that the plague is actually deeper than his flesh. Why does the white appearance seem deeper? The answer is: Because a person’s main vision is through the black in his eye, and when he looks at something that has black and white, for instance: the sun which is white and shade which is black, it seems to him the black is closer to him that the white, because the black in the eye receives more of the vision of something that is black than something white.

He must say to him. I.e., not that he should manually make him impure with something that is one of the Fathers of impurity. And this is what Rashi writes, “for white hair is a sign of uncleanness...”

ועמק אין מראה AND ITS APPEARANCE BE NOT DEEPER [THAN THE SKIN] — I do not know the meaning of this.

ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, even though the sages (Shevuot 6) have said that everything which looks white is described a looking deep, recessed, as the sun appears as if deeper than the shadow, so that the wording of our verse appears to be incompatible with the statement of the sages, seeing that the skin itself is a form of something whitish the Torah means that the relationship of the normal skin to the whiteness of the tzoraat is comparable to the appearance of the shadow to the sun. [a spot of shadow on a bright day, is after all not “black” as is the darkness of the night. In fact, compared to the darkness of the night, it might be viewed as a weak “white.” Ed.]

ועמוק אין מראה, it is not the same kind of white as the other kinds of scales on the skin mentioned thus far.

ועמוק אין מראה מן העור, “and its appearance is not deeper than the skin.” Rashi writes: “I do not know the meaning of these words. His problem was that he had already explained the words עמוק מן העור in the previous verse to mean that every white discolouration of the skin appears as if recessed, lower than the surrounding area, just as an area lit by the rays of the sun appears as lower than the surrounding area bathed in shade. Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg explains our verse in the following manner: “if what is described as בהרת לבן, an extremely bright whitish discolouration, appears deeper than the surrounding area of skin, as is typical of every sunlit area surrounded by shade, then the appearance of this symptom in relation to the surrounding skin is not the beginning of the entire process we are witnessing; in other words, it does not appear lower on account of its whitish colour.” [If I understand this commentary correctly, the author warns us not to treat the whole phenomenon as something natural, explicable in terms of scientific research. The Torah’s message to us and to the afflicted person is that if the symptoms we are witnessing were merely corresponding to known scientific data, the whole disease would lose its character of being a benign warning by the Creator to the afflicted party to examine his lifestyle which alone led to this affliction. Ed.] Our author feels that the tone signs in our verse support the approach of Rabbi Meir from Rotenburg. Nachmanides believes that there is a way of dealing with Rashi’s problem so that [at least technically, Ed,] there is no contradiction between verse 3 and verse 4. He limits the generally accepted principle described by Rashi on verse three that bright areas always appear as deeper, recessed, when compared to surrounding darker areas, as being a phenomenon which holds true only as long as the hair on that area also turned white. When the hair in that bright area has not turned white, then the entire hypothesis of it appearing darker than the surrounding darker area does not hold true. He supports this argument by comparing it to sunspots, i.e. scattered spots of dark areas, black spots on the surface of the sun which do not result in the surrounding bright areas of the sun appearing as being deeper, recessed. He compares the hair (black) on the skin to sun spots scattered over the surface of the sun as we behold it. He also distinguishes between how something appears to the beholder who is close to the object in question and to how it appears to a beholder who looks at it from a distance. (The foregoing was attributed to Maimonides) Nachmanides continues: in spite of all that we have been told, according to which anything white appears deeper than the surrounding dark area, this does not even agree with what we learned in the Talmud Shavuot, 6, which disagrees with that assumption, stating that the very expression שאת [which is derived from the root נשא to lift up, Ed.] means something high, i.e. higher than its surroundings A verse from scripture is quoted in support of this שאת is compared to wool which had been bleached white, so that according to its degree of whiteness it certainly ought to appear as deeper than the darker area surrounding it. The opinion in the Talmud is also corroborated by Torat Kohanim where it is compared to “shadow” which appears ‘higher than the surrounding area.” If every whitish appearance were to be considered as “deep,” we would be faced with a total contradiction to our ancient sources. Perhaps we should say that the expression שאת is used in the sense of being “high” only when it is compared to the skin irregularity described by the Torah as בהרת in verse 2. However, when contrasted to the surrounding normal skin, it is indeed עמוק מן העור, i.e. deeper than regular skin. In view of these various approaches and apparent contradictions, it appears to me that any kind of “white” we look at, leaves a degree of radiance and sparkle in our eyes, similar to that which we experience when we have looked at the sun. This is due to the eye absorbing part of the black colour that clings to it, whereas the white colour is immediately reflected outward. While doing so it also disperses some of the ability of the eye to see properly, an ability that is now somewhat removed from its source, so that it appears to see objects as deeper than they are in reality. בהרת on the other hand, is glaringly bright and powerfully white as snow, causing the human eyes’ sense of vision to undergo a weakening. Just as it undergoes a similar weakening when the eyes step out of the shade into an area illuminated by brilliant sunshine. The only thing that prevents this from happening is the presence of a black hair. If there is a black hair then the ability of the sense of seeing expands to any adjoining black area and from it to the entire surface of the skin affected by the נגע, the affliction like looking irregularity. It will not leave that area. שאת, on the other hand, while being white, is not as brilliantly white as בהרת, so that its whiteness does not harm the sense of sight, it can spread over the area of the afflicted skin and man’s eye can view it without hindrance from proximity without harm. It appears to him as elevated, much as the stars look as if standing out against the background of the sky. In connection with the affliction which we know as שחין, (verse 18), the Torah makes mention of two kinds of visual impressions, one is שאת לבנה, the other is a lesser degree of whiteness described as בהרת לבנה. (Apparently) the white is mixed with some degree of red, i.e. אדמדמת, making it darker) The Torah describes the appearance of that whiteness as מראה שפל מן העור, as opposed to the previous מראה עמוק מן העור. The effect of this reddishness is to make the area appear a little deeper than the surrounding skin, though not a lot deeper, as would be described as עמוק מן העור. According to the plain meaning of the text, the words והנה מראה שפל העור, are describing only the condition of בהרת and do not refer to the appearance of an irregularity called שאת לבנה at all. As far as the Torah writing later (verse 21) ואם יראנה הכהן והנה אין בה שער לבן ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה “but if when the priest looks at it and behold there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the surrounding skin,” this verse refers to both the incidence of שאת לבן as well as to that of בהרת לבן. When discussing skin irregularities resembling injuries from burning oneself, מכות-אש, the Torah mentions the colour לבנה אדמדמת או לבנה, “white streaked with red, or plain white.” When the Torah in the verse following (25) describes the appearance of what was mentioned in verse 24 asעמוק מן העור, “deeper than the surrounding skin,” this part of the verse refers only to the raw flesh which has been described in verse 24 as לבנה, white, and not to the area described as לבנה אדמדמת, white streaked with red. The Torah then mentions that the area described as בהרת is free from any white hair, and does not appear as even slightly deeper than the surrounding skin, for ושפלה איננה מן העור והוא כהה, seeing that the slightly deeper appearance as well as the deeper recessed appearance known as עמוק מן העור, both are reasons to declare the person displaying these symptoms as ritually impure. Such symptoms indicate purification only when not accompanied by any appearance deeper than the surrounding skin. This is the meaning of the word כהה.

I do not know its [proper] interpretation. It appears that Rashi is bothered by the difficulty: It should say: “ואין מראה עמוק מן העור,” [instead of ועמוק אין מראה]! So Rashi answers: If Scripture had written so, it would imply that the appearance is not deep at all. If so, it would pose a difficulty: Why does it require confinement, since it does not have a white appearance and the hair has not turned white? Now, however, that it says: “ועמוק אין מראה,” it implies that there is a small amount of depth [appearance], but it is not deeper than the skin. Thus, it does not have the minimal amount, and it has not reached [the level of] the four appearances [as described in Mishnah Negaim (1:1)]. Nevertheless, it is deep and therefore requires confinement. With regard to this Rashi says: “I do not know its interpretation,” i.e., the explanation of its minimal amount: which depth requires confinement and which depth does not require confinement. Divrei Dovid explains in this way as well, and he follows his view (see there). Rashi [said he does not know] because it posed a difficulty to him: Since a snow-white spot (בהרת) is white, why is it not deeper [in appearance] than the skin? Every white appearance is deeper than the dark [background], as I explained! Due to this difficulty, Rashi did not know the verse’s explanation. Ramban explains similarly. The explanation lying behind his explanation is that according to the view of Rambam and Rashi all the four appearances [of the signs of skineruptions] are deeper [than the skin]. They explain that a spot of intense whiteness (שאת) is slightly higher [in appearance] than בהרת, as Rashi explains in Shavuos (5b), and so the Kesef Mishneh explains in Hilchos Tzora’as (1:6). However, it was momentarily hidden from the Beis Yosef that Rashi explains the same way as he explained Rambam. This is not so according to the view of Targum Yonoson and Ra’avad, [who explain] that שאת is higher [than the skin itself], according to the plain meaning of the Baraisa, and only the strong בהרת is deeper [than the skin]. And if we explain, “ועמוק אין מראה” according to the view of Rabbi Akiva, [it means] as compared to the skin of a white man. However, the Sages said: These and these are [judged] like an average person, i.e., for a German (who is very white) or a Kushi (Ethiopian, very dark skinned), we place medium-darkness paint around the skin-eruption [to judge it]. Still, it remains difficult: Which medium paint? There are a number of levels of “medium”! [Thus,] Rashi did not know how to interpret this (Rav Yaakov Trivash). Ramban answered this question according to the view he had in Rashi’s opinion. [Rashi was bothered by the difficulty mentioned above that a white mark will always appear “deeper” than a dark background. Ramban explains that since the hair has not turned white, the skin-eruption’s whiteness is dimmed by the black hair within it, and so it does not seem so deep].

והסגיר הכהן, “the priest shall lock up (the afflicted person).” This will enable him subsequently to determine if the affliction has spread. If one looks at the same section of skin every day, it is difficult to notice any changes. But if one has not seen it for a period of time, any changes can be noticed immediately. It is assumed that these changes, if any, occur very gradually. When Noach was in the ark and he wished to check if the water level around him had dropped, he also allowed seven days to elapse between dispatching a raven or a dove to examine this state of affairs. (Genesis 8,10). Actually, this comparison is not valid, as in our situation the priest had already marked the outer limits on the skin of the symptoms of the afflicted person clearly. He took the additional precaution of locking that person up in order to prevent him from tampering with what he had marked. He suspected such a person of trying to mislead him at the next inspection of the nega, skin-eczema.

ואם בהרת לבנה היא, “but if the bright spot is white on the skin;” but it is not so white that the appearance of the afflicted area is as if recessed under the skin; as is written: “and its hair has not turned white;” ועמוק אין מראה, “and its appearance is not deeper, etc.” Rashi writes concerning these words, that he does not understand their meaning. What he meant was: seeing that its appearance as white, how is it possible that it did not look deeper?Some commentators say that the words ועמוק אין מראה mean that its appearance is not like the appearance of skin which has been afflicted with שחין, the plague known from Egypt as the skin breaking out in boils. (Torat Kohanim on verse 21) This would mean that the affliction while neither lower nor higher, appears as level with the remainder of the skin.

והסגיר HE SHALL SHUT [HIM UP] — He shall shut him up in one house and shall not see him again until the end of the week. Then the symptom that show themselves shall decide regarding him whether he is unclean or not.

One house. Meaning: The kohein confines the man afflicted; as a result, the plague is confined as well. [It does] not [mean] he should cover the skin-eruption for seven days (Re’m). [Rashi explains this] so that you should not say that during the seven days he might be confined once in this place and another time in that place in a way that each day is a [different] confinement. Therefore, Rashi explains that the confinement should be one time in one house, and he will not be seen seven days. This excludes that if he would be seen during the seven days, even if the skin-eruption spreads, he is not impure, because possibly it could change at the end (Divrei Dovid).

ועמוק, “and if deeper;” we find that the Torat Kohanim explains that the reason why the Torah wrote the unusually long “and the nega had not assumed a deeper appearance than the skin in the interval between the inspection then the afflicted person is pronounced ritually contaminated,” is that if it had not done so, we would have thought that only a spreading of the symptoms would lead the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually contaminated. The fact that the area afflicted had not diminished, is proof that the symptoms had been that which the afflicted person himself had suspected to begin with. The Torah uses similar language when discussing symptoms of boils in verse 20 of our chapter. The wording of the entire chapter has to be understood in this vein. However, according to the explanation of Rashi, the word עמוק has to be understood as relative, i.e. like shade compared to an area lit up by the sun. This does not sound like a good comparison for the word הסגר, “locking up.” Our author admits that when speaking of north Europeans who have a very light skin the comparison is more apt. With people like that the appearance of the nega described in the Torah is not usually so much different from his normal skin colour. This sounds far fetched as we are told that the skin eczema known as baheret, is as white as snow, and what can be whiter than snow?

ושערה לא הפך לבן, and the hair which formerly had been black had not turned white; the letter ה in the first word ושערה (here, as opposed to verse 20) does not have the dot that we would have expected if it were to mean: “its appearance.”

והסגיר הכן, “and the priest will lock him up;” at the end of another seven days the priest will understand if there has been a further expansion of the afflicted area. When someone observes a condition constantly, he would not recognise minor changes; but if he had not looked at that area for a period of seven days, it is much easier to judge if there had been a change.

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)

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.

ונראה שנית, “and he is to be seen by the priest a second time.” The Torah should have written: “a third time,” as the priest had already seen that person twice.

ואם פשה תפשה אחרי הראותו, “but if the scab spread after he had shown it to the priest, even immediately;

וטמאו הכהן AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM UNCLEAN — and as soon as he has pronounced him unclean he is a decided leper and he is obliged when he recovers from his leprosy to bring two birds (as a means of his purification) and to shave his flesh and to bring the offering which is mentioned in the section beginning זאת תהיה — Leviticus ch. 14 (cf. Megillah 8b).

צרעת הוא. it is a form of leprosy. The meaning of these words is that even if the priest had previously declared the person afflicted as "clean," this judgment is reversesd retroactively in light of the afflicted area having spread. The reason is that a scab which does not indicate ritual impurity is not in the habit of spreading. The Torah indicates that the spreading needs only to be minimal in order for the afflicted person to be declared as ritually impure. It is the scab which is the affliction, not its size.

צרעת היא, definitive, beyond doubt. The afflicted person has to remain in isolation until cured when he or she will offer bird-offerings.

And a sacrifice. I.e., this is not the case regarding a metzoro who is [only] confined, who does not have any of these. Because the impurity of a confined metzoro is mentioned here as well as the impurity of a metzoro who is definitely impure, as [we see that] “impurity” is mentioned with regard to both of them, as it is written concerning the confined one, “and he shall wash his clothing,” which implies that he is impure, and regarding the definitely impure it is written, “the kohein shall declare him unclean...” [Therefore,] Rashi here lets us know the difference between them as well.

צרעת היא, “it is the dreaded skin disease known as tzoraat.” What had first been diagnosed as נגע and had therefore been described in the masculine mode, is now described in the feminine mode, i.e. צרעת. (Compare verse 3)

צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — this מספחת is a leprosy (while the מספחת mentioned in v. 6 is a clean scab)

This. Rashi needs to explain this because מספחת (white discoloration) is the special name for a pure skin-eruption, [therefore,] he needs to explain that the word היא refers to the word המספחת, and its explanation is that the skineruption, which we would have thought is a מספחת and thus pure, is actually tzora’as and is impure. Above, however, concerning (v. 6): “מספחת היא (it is [merely] a white discoloration),” it surely refers to the word בהרת above, and since בהרת is a general expression for every brightly hued skin-eruption, it is fine to say, “מספחת היא,” that is, the mentioned above בהרת [is merely a white discoloration]. There, Rashi does not need to explain anything (Re’m).

The word צרעת is feminine; נגע is masculine.

is masculine. Rashi is answering the question: Above, it is written, “נגע צרעת הוא” [in the masculine form] which implies that tzora’as is masculine, but here it is written, “נגע צרעת כי תהיה,” which is the feminine form. For this reason Rashi explains: “Tzora’as is of feminine gender, but נגע is masculine.” Because of this, it is written above, “נגע צרעת הוא”; the word הוא refers to נגע which is masculine.

A skin-eruption of tzora’as. Although it has previously been clarified that the word nega (skin-eruption) is only used when it is already [known to be] unclean, nevertheless, this usage of the word here comes to teach us that even if the man knows by himself that in the end it will be unclean he must still be brought to the kohein.

ומחית A QUICK [RAW FLESH] — sainement in old French English healing; — it means that the part of the white within the “higher-lying white spot” (השאת) has turned to a flesh-colour; this, too, is a symptom of uncleanness; — white hair without healthy flesh, and healthy flesh without white hair . Although healthy flesh is mentioned only in connection with a spot of higher-lying colour, in the case of all pure white colours (snow-white and wool-white) and their shades (lit., derivations) it is also a symptom of uncleanness(cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 3 1; Mishnah Negaim 4:6).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE, AND, BEHOLD, IF THERE BE A WHITE RISING IN THE SKIN, AND IT HAVE TURNED THE HAIR WHITE, AND THERE BE QUICK RAW FLESH IN THE RISING. The meaning of this verse is not that it is necessary for both to be present, namely, the white hair and the quick flesh [before the afflicted person is declared impure], since in the first section Scripture declared him impure because of white hair alone;⁹⁹Above, Verse 3. similarly, the appearance of the live flesh alone is a symptom of impurity. If so, the meaning of the verse is: “and it have turned the hair white, or there be quick raw flesh in the rising.” It mentions here white hair in the case of se’eith (rising) although it stated it already in the case of bahereth (bright spot),¹⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 4. in order to teach us that in the case of both colors white hair is a symptom of impurity. Our Rabbis have explained¹⁰¹Torath Kohanim, Negaim 3:7. that the reason [why white hair is mentioned here when it has already been said above that it is a symptom of impurity] is in order to establish the minimum size of the quick flesh [mentioned here], that it must be large enough to contain the white hair, [the smallest number implied] being two.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי, and it has turned the hair white, and there be healthy flesh, etc. The plain meaning of the verse is that two conditions must be present in order for the afflicted person to be ritually impure, 1) healthy flesh, 2) white hair; our sages in Torat Kohanim write as follows: "I might have thought that the person remains "clean" until he develops white hair plus an area of healthy flesh; to teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote: 'it is an old צרעת,' i.e. it is impure and no other symptom is needed. If so, why does our verse speak about white hair and healthy flesh? this teaches that impurity is not decreed unless the area of skin is large enough to accomodate both white hair and healthy flesh." Apparently the inference from the text that healthy flesh alone (when inside the white area) is sufficient cause to declare the person ritually impure was based on the word נושנת; this poses a problem, however; granted that the presence of healthy flesh inside the white area does not need an additional symptom in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually unclean -as distinct from the presence of white hair alone,- whence do we know that the presence of such healthy flesh by itself results in ritual impurity? Perhaps the word היא in our verse refers back to either one of two symptoms appearing; 1) the hair turning white in which case there is no need for a further symptom; 2) healthy flesh appearing, and not as Korban Aharon explains it as referring only to the appearance of healthy flesh. It is also possible that the rule that an area of healthy flesh within the white area is sufficient by itself to declare the afflicted person ritually impure is derived from the additional words בשר חי at the end of the verse. The words טמא הוא in verse 11 make it plain that no other symptoms were needed. Ignoring the words of Torat Kohanim for the moment, I believe that the absence of the words או מחית בשר חי tells us that if both symptoms exist and the white area covers the entire surface of the skin this indicates that the person is ritually pure, something I could not have inferred if the Torah had written the word או. How would I then have known that the person could be declared "clean" while suffering simultaneously from two symptoms each of which is basically a symptom signifying ritual impurity?

ומחיית בשר חי, with a patch of undiscoloured flesh not like fully ripened skin but raw, like a piece of flesh in the middle of the afflicted scab.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת, “and it has changed hair to white, or that there is healthy live flesh within the white area described previously as שאת;” the letter ו in front of the word ומחית does not mean ”and,” so that both conditions have to be met before the priest must decree absolute isolation of the afflicted person. The letter ו here means “or,” as it does in many instances.

והיא הפכה שער לבן, “and it has changed hair to white,” according to Sifra Negaim 3,6 the Torah speaks of 2 hairs or more. The reason that white hair in that area is a sign of ritual impurity is simply that according to nature these hairs are normally black. If there is a deviation from what is natural this is an indication of something being diseased.

As well as healthy [flesh] without white hair. [Rashi knows this] because later in this section it is written (v. 14), “On the day that healthy flesh appears on him he will become unclean,” which implies that if there is healthy flesh he will become impure even when the hair does not turn white. If so, that which it is written here: “and it has turned the hair white or there is healthy flesh” means: The hair turned white without healthy flesh or there is healthy flesh without the hair turning white.

והיא הפכה, “and it had changed colour;” the word והיא here is spelled with the letter י and not with the letter ו; [as in verses 4,7 and 8. Ed.]

It is a sign of uncleanness. [Rashi knows this] because we include from that which is written, “נגע צרעת”; why does Scripture need to write נגע? It should have written only צרעת [or only נגע]! Rather, [it must be that] it includes every appearance of a נגע if it has the signs which it continues to explain, constitutes a sign of impurity.

צרעת נשנת הוא IT IS AN OLD LEPROSY — i. e. it is an old leprous malady beneath the sound flesh, and this wound appears healthy above, but underneath it is full of moisture (pus), therefore the priest shall pronounce it unclean. Scripture states this in order that you should not say: since healthy flesh has come over it I shall pronounce it clean.

It has produced healthy [flesh], I will declare it clean. Re’m writes: This raises a strong difficulty: From here it implies that healthy flesh is a sign of purity, and therefore one [might] say: “Since it has produced healthy [flesh], I will declare it clean.” Above, however, Rashi says: “Or there is healthy flesh” — “This too is a sign of uncleanness...”! It appears to me that Rashi is coming to answer why does Scripture need to write: “It is an old tzora’as...” It should have written only, “or there is healthy flesh in the spot of intense whiteness, and the kohein shall declare him unclean.” Rashi answers that Scripture itself comes to give the reason why we declare him impure when he has healthy flesh, [since,] on the contrary, he should be declared pure because the skin-eruption has begun to heal since it has healthy flesh. For this reason Scripture explained: “It is an old tzora’as.”

צרעת נושנת, “an old tzoraat;” Rashi here is not precise enough in his commentary. In Torat Kohanim a white hair is considered as proof of ritual contamination of the skin from which it grows. Similarly what is described by the Torah as michyeh, i.e. מכות מחיה, in verse 24, is a sure sign of ritual impurity, regardless of any changes from one week to another. The fact that it too is treated by the Torah as feminine, is clear proof of this.

צרעת נושנת היא, “it is an old plague,” it had only appeared to have healed by new skin covering it. Beneath that new skin the flesh had remained raw and moist. The Torah had to inform us of this so that we would not think that the surface of the skin is the only determining factor. That is not enough for the priest to declare the afflicted person as ritually pure. (Compare Rashi)

מראשו FROM THE HEAD of the man ועד רגליו AND UNTO HIS FEET,

AND IF THE LEPROSY BREAK OUT ABROAD IN THE SKIN, AND THE LEPROSY COVER ALL THE SKIN OF THE PLAGUE¹⁰²It is clear from Ramban’s words further on, that he interpreted the Hebrew eth kol or hanega literally: “all the skin of the plague.” It is generally translated though: “all the skin of him that hath the plague.” As explained further, Ramban also understands the verse to apply only where the leprosy covered the whole body, while the expression all the skin of the plague serves to teach us some new matter, as stated in the text. FROM HIS HEAD EVEN TO HIS FOOT … [HE IS CLEAN]. Now the breaking out of the leprosy is not deemed a symptom of purity, until it spreads over the entire body, except for the places which the Sages enumerated in the Mishnah,¹⁰³Negaim 8:5. which do not prevent a person who has turned completely white [from being pronounced pure]. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase all the skin of the plague [which would indicate that only the area of the plague need be turned white]? Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague and from his head even to his foot.” Scripture is thus stating that the place of the plague and the whole body have turned white, but if the whole body has become white, and the appearance of [the area of] the plague has turned to bohak¹⁰⁴Further, Verse 39. “Lentil-like spots, and between the spots the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness” (Rashi, ibid.). Now the verse there concludes that bohak is pure. But Ramban here points out that if the leprosy broke out and covered all the person’s body, except that the original place of the plague turned into bohak, he is impure, since before the rule of the present verse applies, the leprosy must spread also to cover the skin of the plague. The same rule applies even if the skin of the plague became completely healed, as mentioned next in the text. or it became healed, the person is impure.

ואם פרוח תפרח הצרעת, וגו., “if the tzoraat will erupt on the skin, etc.” the Torah describes a continuous spread of the affliction until eventually the entire skin of the body is covered with that affliction. When the Torah used the expression את כל עור הנגע, “the entire skin of the affliction,” an expression that seems somewhat confusing, it means that the entire area of the body’s skin, including head and feet, is covered with the affliction. If the area where the affliction had started either did not turn properly white, or became healthy looking again the person is ritually unclean. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for the apparent paradox that when covered with the affliction from head to toe, the affected person is considered ritually pure, is that the very spread over the entire body of this affliction is a sign that it does not penetrate further into the body, proof that the person is on the way to a complete recovery, seeing the problem is only skin-deep.

Of a man. And not from the head of the skin-eruption until its feet, for head and foot are not applicable with regard to it. Meaning: We should not say: from the head of the skin-eruption, for afterwards Scripture said: “The kohein shall see and behold! The tzora’as has covered all of his body” — of a man (Kitzur Mizrachi).

ואם פרוח תפרח, “if these symptoms show up in different parts of his skin;” if different parts of his skin seem to break out in white spots as if flowering;”

לכל מראה עיני הכהן WHERESOEVER THE PRIEST LOOKETH (lit., to the whole sight of the priest’s eyes) — This excludes a priest the sight of whose eyes is darkened (whose sight is imperfect) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 4 4).

מראשו, “from his head down;” not on his head; ועד רגליו, “all the way down to his feet;” excluding the feet themselves;

לכל מראה עיני הכהן, “as far as it appears to the priest’s eyes;” this excludes a priest whose eyesight is defective; (Rashi) Why did the Torah only exclude a priest who has defective eyesight?, Why did it not also prohibit such inspections on a very cloudy day when everyone’s vision is impaired? This did not have to be spelled out as it is logical. (Compare verse 5) where the word: בעיניו, “as it appears to his eyes,” has already implied that any impediment to the priest seeing clearly prevents such an inspection from being performed and to have legal validity. An alternate interpretation: the words above mean that the inspection must be performed in parts of the body which are clearly visible, not in the armpits, private parts, etc. In connection with this our Rabbis coined the saying: האיש נראה כעודר ומוסק זיתים, והאשה כעורכת ומיניקה את בנה, “a man looks as if busy picking olives, whereas the woman appears as if getting ready to nurse her son.” These are similes describing when normally hidden folds in one’s skin become exposed due to the nature of that person’s activity. [The Rabbis used elegant language to refer to respective private parts of men and women. Ed.]

בו בשר חי‎‎‎‏‎‎ וביום הראות ‎‎ BUT ON THE DAY WHEN RAW FLESH APPEARETH IN HIM [HE SHALL BE UNCLEAN] — If this means that a healthy spot sprang up in it and that on this account it is unclean, surely, however, it has already been stated that the healthy spot is a symptom of uncleanness! Why repeat it here? But it is the following case: that the plague was on one of the “twenty-four tips of the limbs” that project from the body (cf. Rashi on Exodus 21:26), — which cannot become unclean (i. e. be declared unclean) because it has healthy flesh since the leprous plague as a whole cannot be seen at one time, (as is required by Scripture stating: לכל מראה עיני הכהן cf. Kiddushin 25a),because they (the two sides of the affected limb) slope in different directions (Mishnah Negaim 6:7; Kiddushin 25a) — and the tip of the limb altered, so that its sloping side became visible through fat, as e. g., if it (the tip of the limb) became thick and broadened (so that the sloping sides flattened out to form one surface with the limb) and the healthy flesh thus becomes visible in it, Scripture informs us that it (such healthy flesh) makes it unclean on the day when it is seen in it (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 1). ‎

Healthy [flesh] could be seen. Meaning: “On the day” does not come to teach that the healthy flesh is a sign of impurity, since it has already indicated: “Or there is healthy flesh in the spot of intense whiteness, it is an old tzora’as.” Rather, it teaches about the tips of the limbs where the skin eruption cannot be seen all at once, since [the limbs] slope on either side, [the healthy flesh will not be a sign of impurity,] as it is written: “[The kohein] will see it,” [and the Rabbis taught in Toras Kohanim that he must see it] entirely [as one]. [If that limb subsequently became fat and the tip broadened so that its slope was exposed and now the entire skin-eruption can be seen at once,] I might think that since originally it was not seen in its entirety, now also, when it fattened and broadened and is entirely seen, the healthy flesh will [still] not be a sign of impurity. Therefore, it lets us know [that it is].

וביום הראות בו בשר חי, “and from the day when raw flesh appears on that area;” this is clear proof that the afflicted person must be declared as ritually unclean. Rashi writes that although this verse has been understood by the Talmud in tractate Kidushin folio 25, differently. i.e. 24 limbs of the human body are not subject to this kind of ritual contamination as they require the visual inspection of a priest, the Torah here specifically spells out that if symptoms of eczema break out before the afflicted person has shaved himself, this rule does not apply to the symptoms described here, as מחיה. [Compare Maimonides hilchot tumat tzoraat chapter three halachah eight Ed.] Our author repeats that Rashi here was not accurate and disagrees with the version of Torat Kohanim. (5,1)

וביום — Why is this word used (it might have said ובהראות)? To inform us that there are days when you may see (examine) the plague and there are days when you may not examine. On this account they (the Rabbis) said: A bridegroom is given a respite of all the seven days of the marriage festivities — to him, and to his clothing and his house (i.e. whether he himself or his clothing, cf. v. 17, or his house, cf. Leviticus 14:33 ff., has been affected by a leprous disease), and similarly on a festival he (everyone) is given a respite all the days of that festival — and during these periods the priest may not come to examine him or his clothing or his house (Mishnah Negaim 3:2; Moed Katan 7b; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 5 2; cf. Bekhorot 43b).

From here they [the Sages] said: A bridegroom. [Rashi knows this] because it should say [only]: “ובהראות.”

ולאיצטליתו. Meaning: His clothing, for the Targum Onkeles of (Bereishis 45:22):חמש חליפות (and five changes of clothing) is חמש איצטלוון.

During a festival, he is given all the days of the festival. Meaning: The kohein may not declare other people [other than bridegrooms] impure during a festival, until after the festival passes.

צרעת הוא IT IS A LEPROSY — that flesh is a leprosy; בשר is masc., and therefore the pronoun הוּא is used as its copula.

צרעת הוא, “it is the affliction we have been discussing.” The reason why the Torah here uses the masculine pronoun is that it refers to בשר חי in verse 10 which is masculine.

או כי ישוב, “or the raw flesh reverses its appearance, etc.” this refers to what the Torah had described in verses 1015, especially in verse 13.

או כי ישוב, “refers to the extremities of the limbs like the tips of fingers or toes which had alternately becoming visible as normal and as diseased. [The Torah had taught in verse 13 that if the entire surface of someone’s skin is afflicted, such a person is ritually pure. It follows therefore that when the healing process begins, some skin will no longer be afflicted, i.e. he will then have to become ritually unclean when the priest sees this and acknowledges it. I have added this, as not all my readers may have paid attention to the verses not dealt with by our author as he assumed that his audience was familiar with them. Ed.]

שחין A BOIL — The word expresses the idea of heat. It is so called because the flesh has become inflamed by an injury which came about as the result of a blow and not as the result of fire (the latter case being mentioned in v. 24 and being termed a מכוה) (Chullin 8a).

שחין, our sages explained this as like the infected hot area of an injury on the flesh’s skin. There is another type of שחין, the result of a burning of the skin by fire.

Because of a wound. [This raises a strong difficulty: Why did Rashi not include an inflammation that came by itself and not because of a wound? (Re’m)] It seems Rashi’s intention is that so much more so [there is impurity regarding] an inflammation which occurred by itself and not because of a wound. Rashi only comes to exclude an inflammation that was caused by a fire, since that is called a מכוה (burn). All this is obvious in Toras Kohanim and Chulin (8a). Re’m brought the Gemora in Chulin and the Toras Kohanim but did not realize it is a kal vachomer, and therefore he wrote what he wrote (Nachalas Yaakov).

ונרפא, “and it is healed.” At first glance this word is enigmatic. How does this word get into this verse? However, we find that in the Torat Kohanim this word plus the fact that instead of the afflicted person being the subject in this verse, the subject is the state of his skin, teaches that in spite of the nega not being able to develop in the normal manner, the person so afflicted is already declared as ritually impure. The boil, שחין, must first heal completely, before a healing process for the nega can even begin.

ונרפא AND IT BECAME HEALED — the boil (not the flesh also mentioned in this verse) became healed and in its place it produced another plague (the שאת mentioned in the next verse).

The inflammation. [The inflammation healed] but not the flesh that had the inflammation, for you would not say the flesh “healed” as long as it has the שאת (spot of intense whiteness). Rather, it means the inflammation healed but the flesh is still afflicted.

או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת in OR A BRIGHT SPOT REDDISH-WHITE — It means that the plague is not evenly white but it is compounded and intermingled with two colours — white and red.

והיה במקום השחין שאת לבנה, this spot is not being judged by the same criteria as listed earlier which were inflammations of skin on the flesh; similarly, inflammations caused by fire burning the skin. When ordinary שחין destroys the tissue on top of the skin it never grows back to look as it did originally. What grows on the afflicted area is tissue which resembles the original skin, so that no skin graft is needed. Original skin is medically irreplaceable. [opinions in those days.] When someone suffers from a נגע צרעת the skin, when healed, looks indistinguishable from the original.

שאת לבנה או בהרת לבנה, "a white rising or a very bright spot, etc." According to Torat Kohanim the reason the Torah writes לבנה, white, is to exclude אדמדמת, a שאת of a reddish appearance; the words בהרת לבנה אדמדמת refer to a בהרת mixed with a reddish appearance. [I did not find this in my edition of Torat Kohanim on this verse. Ed.] How do I know that the rules stated in our verse apply to a שאת אדמדמת, and to בהרת לבנה that instead of the שחין there is now a completely white spot of the intensity called בהרת? This is why the Torah added the words נגע צרעת, "it is a form of leprosy," in verse 20. At first glance it seems that these extra words should have been necessary only in respect of שאת, the rising on the skin which was of a mixed colouring (white and reddish); seeing that the basic colour was not an intense white I might have presumed that it did not qualify anymore as a symptom conferring ritual impurity. We never would have assumed this of an area which contained the kind of bright whiteness known as בהרת. We never find that שאת is more susceptible to impurity than בהרת.

פתוך. In Shavuos (6a) Rashi explains פתוך means intermingled.

או בהרת לבנה אדמדמת, “or a white rising or a bright spot, reddish white;” according to Torat Kohanim, the reddish looking spot is a phenomenon that occurs with all the four different types of the skin diseases described in this chapter. It is a clear sign that the afflicted person will be declared ritually impure.

The true explanation of the verse then is this: "a white rising on the skin of the kind called שאת לבנה or an intensely white spot called בהרת which contains also some reddish appearance is still a symptom of ritual impurity because the colour of בהרת contains some rising, שאת, and will not result in purification seeing a leprosy like appearance grew in it." The words נגע צרעת are not necessary except to tell us that the שאת underwent a dimming of its white colour. While it is true that the author of Torat Kohanim speaks of two divisions, the second one is mentioned as incidental not because we needed the words נגע צרעת to convey this information.

מראה שפל IT BE IN SIGHT LOWER [THAN THE SKIN] — it itself is not deeper, but on account of its whiteness it appears lower and deeper ‎(מראה שפל), just as the colour of anything illuminated by the sun is deeper than the shadow (see Rashi v. 3).

והנה מראה שפל, “and behold its appearance is as if lower than the skin’s surface;” How do we know that what is true for the appearance remaining level with the skin adjoining it is treated by halachah as the same as if it appears raised? To teach us this, the Torah wrote: ושפלה איננה מן העור, “but it does not appear lower than the rest of the skin.” (verse 21)

ושפלה איננה מן העור והיא כהה, “and it does not appear to be lower than the skin surrounding it;” why did the Torah have to write the words: והיא כהה, “and it has diminished in intensity?” The reason is because we have had that same expression used when the priest made his second examination. (verse 6) Some commentators understand this expression as referring to the word: איננה; we find a similar construction in Psalms 9,19: תקות ענוים תאבד לעד, “the hope of the afflicted will not forever be lost.” [This line must not be understood as a positive statement, instead as a plaintive question or reassurance that “of course this hope will not be lost forever. “ Ed.] The verse should therefore be understood as follows: “even though the symptom of the affected skin does not appear lower than that surrounding it, but the intensity of the discoloration has not diminished, this is sufficient reason for the priest to place the person in isolation, even if the hair in that area has not turned white; in other words, if the intensity of the discoloration did diminish, it is clear that the person afflicted will be declared ritually pure.

והיא כהה, here too the word: והיא, is spelled with the letter י before the letter א, just as in verse 10.

נגע הִוא IT IS A PLAGUE — this rising or bright spot is a plague (שאת and בהרת are fem., hence the fem. adj. הִיא).

נגע הוא, “it is a plague.” The word הנא is read as having the vowel chirik. It is in the feminine mode as it describes either the word: בהרת or שאת, both of which are feminine nouns.

.תחתיה means IN ITS PLACE (and not “beneath it”).

ואם תחתיה תעמוד הבהרת, “but if the bright spot stays unchanged in its place;” even though it did not diminish, the afflicted person is declared as ritually pure, seeing the cause of the affliction had been the rising on the skin of the boil, or the burns that that person had suffered; as long as the area of the plague had not increased in size it is not a fully fledged plague.

צרבת שחין [IT IS] A BURNING BOIL — Understand this as the Targum does: רשם שחנא — i. e. it is only a mark (a scar) of the inflammation, discernible in the flesh. Wherever צרבת occurs it denotes the contraction of skin which has become shrivelled through inflammation. Similar is, (Ezekiel 21:3) “and every face shall become shrivelled (ונצרבו)” through the heat mentioned in the verse, retrecir in old French, to contract.

צרבת is retrecissement in old French, (English = contraction).

מחית המכוה IIEALED FLESH OF THE BURNT PART — sainement in old French The text means that when the burnt part was healed it turned into a bright spot variegated or evenly white (i.e. ‎'וכו‎‎ והיתה denotes “and the healed flesh became a white bright spot etc.”). The symptoms of cleanness or uncleanness of a burn and the symptoms of a boil are exactly similar. Why, then, has Scripture mentioned them separately (in two paragraphs, instead of saying ואדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שחין ומכוה )? To tell us that they cannot be combined one with the other to make up the minimum size of a spot which is a symptom of leprosy — if, e. g., there develops a leprous spot the size of a half of a גריס (a גריס is a half-bean; חצי גריס is a half of this), in a boil (שחין), and one of the size of a half גריס in a burn (מכוה), they do not come under the law of a full ‎‎‏ גריס(the minimum size for an unclean spot) (Chullin 8a).

או בשר, “or when flesh, etc.;” there is no difference between how halachah treats either a burn on the skin or a boil caused through internal swelling. The reason, why in spite of this, the Torah appears to treat it as two different phenomena, is because it wishes to teach that if either of these phenomena are present in smaller sizes than the minimum size to qualify as a plague, these two phenomena combined are not to be considered as big enough combined to result in our viewing them as evidence of a plague. This has been stated in the Talmud, tractate Chulin, folio 8. The minimum size is half the size of a certain kind of bean known as פנל.

ומראה עמוק מן העור, “and its appearance is as if deeper than the skin;” how do we know that when it appears as level with the surrounding skin or higher that the same rule applies? This is why the Torah had added in verse 21: ושפלה איננה, “but not lower than the surrounding skin;”

לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it has not spread on the surface of the skin and has dimmed;” this means that if it has spread although its appearance did not change, it will be declared as making its victim ritually impure.

לא פשתה בעור והיא כהה, “it had not spread on the skin, and had become dimmer in appearance;” the word כהה is used as complementing the words לא פשתה, i.e. “it had not spread and not become dimmer.” (Compare our commentary on verse 21 in connection with שחין)

בראש או בזקן UPON THE HEAD OR UPON THE BEARD — Scripture intends to make a difference between a plague which is on a place where hair grows and a plague which is on a place where flesh is (already mentioned v. 38) — that as regards this (that on the flesh) its symptom of uncleanness consists in white hair, and as regards the other its symptom consists in gold-coloured hair (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 14).

IF A MAN OR WOMAN HATH AN AFFLICTION UPON THE HEAD OR THE BEARD. “Scripture intends to differentiate between a plague which is on a place where hair grows, and a plague on the flesh, for as regarding a plague on the flesh the symptom of impurity is white hair, while the symptom of a plague on a place where the hair grows is gold-colored hair — that the black hair has turned into gold-colored. 30. ‘NETHEK HU’ (IT IS A SCALL). This is the name of the plague on a place where hair grows.” This is Rashi’s language.
It would appear from this language that the difference between a plague upon the head or beard and a plague in the skin of the flesh, is that which Rashi mentioned, namely, the white hair and the gold-colored; thus if a plague occurs in any of its four colors¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. in a place where hair grows upon the head or beard, and if the hair became gold-colored, then the person is impure, just as he is impure if the hair turned white in a plague on the skin of the flesh. But how is it possible to say so! Rashi himself has written [further on]: “As the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. [It is like the color of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with plagues of the skin of the flesh, namely] that it makes one impure by means of any of the four white colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. and it is not to be treated like the color of the nethakim (scalls) on the place where hair grows, which do not render a person impure by reason of the four colors: the se’eith and its secondary shade, and bahereth and its secondary shade!”¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). Now if [a nethek] does not render the person impure by means of one of these four colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. then by what color and under what condition does it render one impure? Scripture has mentioned only the signs necessary for declaring him absolutely impure, namely, if gold-colored hair appeared in the nethek or spreading thereof took place¹⁰⁸Verses 30, 36. [but, according to Rashi, Scripture has left unspecified what color the nethek must be originally, in order that it be subject to inspection]! Indeed, it seems that the Rabbi [Rashi] thought Scripture informed us of the name of the plague upon the head or beard by stating ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall)¹⁰⁹Verse 30. meaning that this is its particular name, the designation by which it is recognized. Thus Scripture mentioned in the case of the plagues [in the skin of the flesh] their names and their colors, namely, ‘bahereth l’vanah’ (a bright spot which is white),¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),¹¹¹Ibid., Verse 10. and in the case of the head it also mentioned its name [namely, nethek], for by that designation it is known, and that name indeed Scripture declared to be impure, and then it went back and explained the symptoms [of the nethek] for the person to be declared absolutely impure at the end [i.e., after he had been put in quarantine for a week]. This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] opinion on the nethek (scall).
This interpretation of Rashi’s opinion is further borne out by his words when he said that the sense of the following section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head¹¹²Further, Verse 40. is to say that if a man’s hair falls off his head and he becomes bald, he is clean; that is, “he is clean from the impurity of nethakim (scalls in a hair-spot) on the head,” and he is no longer rendered impure by the kind of plague called nethek, but instead he is subject to the laws of a plague on the skin of the flesh, [namely] se’eith and its secondary shade, for since there is no hair there [after becoming bald] he is excluded from the law applying to the head or the beard.
But all this is not so. For as long as the head or beard contain hair, they do not render the person impure at all by means of any of the colors of leprosy [since they are not “the skin of the body”]. But when baldness affects a certain part of the head, the hair falling out from its very roots, and that place becomes smooth and clear of any hair, and then there grows in that baldness a gold-colored thin hair¹⁰⁹Verse 30. — that is the impure plague [dealt with here]. It is for that reason that it is called nethek [of the root nothak — “to tear away”] because the hair has become removed from there, and it is not merely a name, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote. Rather, for as his name is, so is he,¹¹³I Samuel 25:25. for [in order that the law of nethek should apply], it is necessary that the hair falls out [on the head or the beard] in a place [at least] the size of a bean, and after the natural falling out of this first hair from that place, if that gold-colored “afflicted” hair springs up, it is a symptom of impurity. This does not apply if the gold-colored hair come there before the baldness. So also we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁴Negaim 7:1. “If [a bahereth] appeared on the head or the beard,¹¹⁵Now the head or the beard become impure only by a nethek (scall), and not by a bahereth; (a bright white spot). Thus when the bahereth first appeared on the head or the beard, the person remained pure. Later on when he became bald, in which case the law of bahereth might have applied, he also remains pure, because the bahereth preceded the baldness. and then the head or the beard became bald, they are pure. If it were on the head or the beard before these grew hair, and they then grew hair and again became bald, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov declares them impure, since both in the beginning and at the end they were impure. But the Sages declare them to be pure.” And with regards to gold-colored hair which precede [the nethek] we have also been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶Ibid., 10:4. “If gold-colored hair preceded the nethek (scall) it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah declares it impure. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: It neither renders the person impure, nor does it afford him protection.”¹¹⁷The law of hair which has become gold-colored because of the nethek provides that if there be two black hairs in it, the person is pure [although all the other hair have turned gold-colored]. But if there be in it two gold-colored hairs that were there before the nethek came, and turned the other black hair gold-colored, they do not afford protection to the nethek, and the person is impure. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s statement: “It neither renders the person impure [if all the hair turned gold-colored before the nethek appeared], nor does it afford protection” [thus we do not say that since it was naturally gold-colored before the nethek appeared, and not as a result of it, it is considered like black hair which renders the person pure, because although it is not in itself a symptom of the plague, it is nonetheless unable to protect the person from impurity unless its natural colors is black]. This whole topic is similarly taught also in the Sifra.¹¹⁸Torath Kohanim, Tazria 8:6.
The reason why Scripture does not mention “the baldness” at first [but instead begins Verse 29 before us by stating: If a man or woman hath an affliction upon the head or the beard], is because it mentioned with reference to the plague on the head or beard a “deep appearance” and “gold-colored hair,”¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and it is impossible that the appearance thereof should be deep in the same way that the color of the sun appears deeper than the shadow, as long as a person’s black natural hair is still upon him. Therefore Scripture spoke about the customary way of people, for when plagues come upon their head, [that part of the head] first becomes bald, and then a plague arises in the baldness, in which the thin short gold-colored hair grows. Then [in Verse 30] Scripture explains ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall), in order to make it quite clear that he is not to be declared impure unless there was a baldness.
Now in the opinion of most commentators¹¹⁹So clearly set forth by Rabad in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath, 8:1, and in 16:1. this plague, namely, the nethek, need not have a bahereth (a bright spot) or se’eith (rising) nor their subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). nor any change of appearance in the skin of the head, but as soon as the hair fell out from a spot the size of a bean on the head or beard, and is entirely uprooted from its roots, that is the plague, and if thin gold-colored hair appears in it, the person is impure. This is the leprosy of the head or of the beard.¹⁰⁹Verse 30. For Scripture first declared the person impure if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it gold-colored thin hair,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and then it mentioned that if the appearance thereof is not deeper than the skin, that the plague must be shut up for a week;¹²⁰Verse 31. then it declared him to be impure if [after this week] the nethek spread in the skin,¹²¹Verse 36. the sense thereof being that [in the case of the spreading of the nethek] the appearance thereof need not be deeper than the skin, nor different in any way [for him to be declared impure]. Now surely these two symptoms [of impurity in the nethek], namely, spreading of the plague and appearance of gold-colored hair, are alike in their laws. If so, the verses intend to teach us that whether the appearance of the nethek is as deep as the appearance of a bahereth, or whether it is not as deep or is not different in any way [from the rest of the skin], as soon as the baldness occurs, the person is rendered impure if gold-colored hair appears in it or if the nethek spreads in the skin. There are many Beraithoth¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. in the Sifra¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. taught on this subject.
Yet [despite all this] it would appear that after the hair falls off from a spot on the head, it is not to be deemed a plague until a bahereth or its subsidiary species appears in that bald spot, or a se’eith or its subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). and then the bahereth or se’eith renders the person impure if it grows gold-colored hair, just [as the bahereth or se’eith] render impure if in the skin of the flesh the black hair has turned white.¹²³Above, Verse 3. For our verse which mentions an affliction upon the head or the beard, and then states, and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. is alluding to the colors of the plagues previously mentioned,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. meaning specifically bahereth and its subsidiaries and also se’eith and its subsidiaries.¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). And this section is singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement not similar to the general proposition, namely, that the colors of the plagues on the head do not render a person impure until the hair has fallen off. The effect of this is sometimes a more lenient ruling, and sometimes a more stringent one. The more lenient ruling is that they do not render the person impure by means of white hair, and the more stringent one is that he is to be pronounced impure by reason of the gold-colored hair. And the interpretation of the verse, And if the priest see the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the plague of the scall seven days,¹²⁰Verse 31. is similar to that mentioned above [in the section dealing with the plagues of the skin of the flesh]: And if ‘bahereth’ (the bright spot) be white in the skin of the flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. for the expression ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall) [here in Verse 31] alludes to the principle that the [four] colors of the “plagues” apply to the nethek as well.
This matter requires further study of the Tosephta¹²⁴Literally: “Addition.” The Tosephta is a collection of Beraithoth, compiled by Rabbi Chiya, soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The books of the Tosephta follow closely those of the Mishnah. Hence the expression here, “the Tosephta to Tractate Negaim.” to Tractate Negaim. For we have been taught there as follows:¹²⁵Tosephta Negaim 1:2. “Nethakim (scalls) cause impurity in all colors, even white on black or black on white, and they cause impurity by means of thin yellow hair which appears to be gold-colored.” Thus far [is the language of the Tosephta]. It would appear from this text that there has to be in the bald part some [distinguishing] color of a plague, either white on the skin of a black-haired man, like the [four] colors of plagues, or even a black plague on the skin of a white-haired man, like “the black murphia” which doctors mention, since Scripture always speaks of ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall),¹²⁰Verse 31. indicating that there has to be a plague in the nethek, but it did not specify any colors for them as it did in the case of [the plagues of] the skin of the flesh. And the second section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head,¹¹²Further, Verse 40. teaches that the law of nethakim applies only if the hair falls off the middle of the head, and hair remains surrounding the nethek on all sides. But if the hair falls off from the back of the head, or towards the face, and that whole side becomes bald [and a plague appeared therein], its status is not to be determined by the symptoms of impurity of the head or beard [namely, gold-colored hair or the spreading of the nethek], but rather by the symptoms of plagues of the skin of the flesh [namely, the appearance of white hair or the spreading of the plague or quick flesh]. The reason for this [distinction between the various locations of the baldness of the head] is that it is in the nature of many people that some of their hair at the sides of the head, in the back or in front becomes bald, and the falling off of the hair there is no sign of sickness, but instead is like the rest of the body. But when the hair falls off from the middle of the head, the place where there normally is hair, it can only be a plague which caused it, that plague in our language being termed tinim,¹²⁶In one Ramban manuscript: tirna. and in Arabic it is called al sa’afah. Accordingly Scripture excluded from this law hair which falls out from the front of his head and the back, since it is usual for people to become bald at those places. And the verse which states, But if there be ‘bakarachath’ (in the bald towards the back of the head), or ‘bagabachath’ (the bald forehead), a reddish-white plague,¹²⁷Verse 42. means that these parts of the head convey impurity as does the rest of the body — by the [four] colors of plagues whether there is a reddish mixture in the white or it be a plain white. Scripture further states as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. This means that [if there is baldness towards the back of the head or the forehead] he is also certified absolutely as impure by quick flesh or the spreading of the plague, which is “the appearance of leprosy” that is certified absolutely as impure in plagues of the skin of the flesh. Now our Rabbis have mentioned that it is not certified as impure by means of white hair, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹²⁸Negaim 4:3. “Quick flesh causes impurity bakarachath (in baldness towards the back of the head), or bagabachath (baldness in the forehead), whereas it is not so with the white hair.” It is also so expressed in the Torath Kohanim.¹²⁹Torath Kohanim, Negaim 11:2.
But some of the commentators¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. stated that the sense of the Scriptural sections is to differentiate between a person afflicted with a nethek [which is discussed in Verses 29-37] and with baldness [as mentioned in Verses 40-44]; and the meaning of the matter is that karachath and gabachath both denote plucking out of the hair in such a manner that it will never grow again, such as where he applied a certain ointment to the hair of his head which caused it to fall out, or where it fell out at its roots naturally, when the moisture [feeding it] dried up. Thus the meaning of this section according to this opinion is that at first Scripture spoke [in Verses 29-37] of nethek, which is a falling off or cutting of the hair, similar to the expressions: ‘v’nathuk v’charuth’ (or torn off, or cut);¹³¹Further, 22:24. as soon as the soles of the priests’ feet ‘nithku’ (were drawn up) unto the dry ground.¹³²Joshua 4:18. Then Scripture states [in Verses 40-44] that if the head be yimareit, meaning that the hair was plucked out by force, thus leaving the bald and shiny like burnished brass,¹³³I Kings 7:45. similar to that which is written, it is furbished that it may glitter¹³⁴Ezekiel 21:15. which as is known will never grow hair again — that is not a nethek, but rather this man ‘keireiach hu’ (he is bald in the back of his head)¹³⁵Verse 40. or gibeiach hu’ (he is bald near his forehead),¹³⁶Verse 41. as other people who are bald, and he is clean¹³⁷Verses 40-41.. But if there be in this baldness towards the back or front of the head one of the [four] colors of plagues¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107., he will be subject to the same law of impurity as is the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, and through their symptoms, namely, quick flesh and the spreading of the plague in the skin [after having been shut up for a week]; except that the Sages in their interpretation excluded from [these symptoms of impurity] white hair [which in the skin of the flesh is a sign of impurity but not in baldness towards the back or front of the head]. The reason for this is that the hair of the head has been plucked out in such a way that it will never grow again, and even if a few hair appear by chance, they will never be black [so that they could through turning white on account of the plague, serve as a sign of impurity], nor will they have the characteristics of hair, but they will be merely some weak form thereof and white. This is the opinion of the French scholars in the commentary to Tractate Negaim.¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. The sense of the Mishnayoth and Beraithoth taught there [in that tractate] tend to support their words. If so, nethek [mentioned in Verses 29-37] is the sickness [called in Arabic] sa’afah [as stated above], or the well-known sicknesses called “the sickness of the fox,” and “the path of the snake,” all these being forms of sickness which can be remedied [so that the hair grows again]; but “the plucking out” of the hair [mentioned in Verses 40-44] is a form of baldness for which there is no help or remedy at all.

ואיש או אשה, and a man or a woman, etc. The Torah had to spell out "or a woman," instead of using the collective term אדם for both man and woman because women do not usually grow beards. The reader who sees the word אדם would conclude that the legislation only applies to people who normally grow beards, i.e. men, and I would have assumed that either minors or Gentiles are included in this legislation whereas any plagues on the beard of a woman would not be subject to the legislation introduced here. The Torah therefore wrote איש או אשה, to tell us that if a woman grows hair in a part of her face where a man grows a beard, the legislation applies to her also.

IF A MAN OR WOMAN HATH AN AFFLICTION UPON THE HEAD OR THE BEARD. “Scripture intends to differentiate between a plague which is on a place where hair grows, and a plague on the flesh, for as regarding a plague on the flesh the symptom of impurity is white hair, while the symptom of a plague on a place where the hair grows is gold-colored hair — that the black hair has turned into gold-colored. 30. ‘NETHEK HU’ (IT IS A SCALL). This is the name of the plague on a place where hair grows.” This is Rashi’s language.
It would appear from this language that the difference between a plague upon the head or beard and a plague in the skin of the flesh, is that which Rashi mentioned, namely, the white hair and the gold-colored; thus if a plague occurs in any of its four colors¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. in a place where hair grows upon the head or beard, and if the hair became gold-colored, then the person is impure, just as he is impure if the hair turned white in a plague on the skin of the flesh. But how is it possible to say so! Rashi himself has written [further on]: “As the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. [It is like the color of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with plagues of the skin of the flesh, namely] that it makes one impure by means of any of the four white colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. and it is not to be treated like the color of the nethakim (scalls) on the place where hair grows, which do not render a person impure by reason of the four colors: the se’eith and its secondary shade, and bahereth and its secondary shade!”¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). Now if [a nethek] does not render the person impure by means of one of these four colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. then by what color and under what condition does it render one impure? Scripture has mentioned only the signs necessary for declaring him absolutely impure, namely, if gold-colored hair appeared in the nethek or spreading thereof took place¹⁰⁸Verses 30, 36. [but, according to Rashi, Scripture has left unspecified what color the nethek must be originally, in order that it be subject to inspection]! Indeed, it seems that the Rabbi [Rashi] thought Scripture informed us of the name of the plague upon the head or beard by stating ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall)¹⁰⁹Verse 30. meaning that this is its particular name, the designation by which it is recognized. Thus Scripture mentioned in the case of the plagues [in the skin of the flesh] their names and their colors, namely, ‘bahereth l’vanah’ (a bright spot which is white),¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),¹¹¹Ibid., Verse 10. and in the case of the head it also mentioned its name [namely, nethek], for by that designation it is known, and that name indeed Scripture declared to be impure, and then it went back and explained the symptoms [of the nethek] for the person to be declared absolutely impure at the end [i.e., after he had been put in quarantine for a week]. This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] opinion on the nethek (scall).
This interpretation of Rashi’s opinion is further borne out by his words when he said that the sense of the following section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head¹¹²Further, Verse 40. is to say that if a man’s hair falls off his head and he becomes bald, he is clean; that is, “he is clean from the impurity of nethakim (scalls in a hair-spot) on the head,” and he is no longer rendered impure by the kind of plague called nethek, but instead he is subject to the laws of a plague on the skin of the flesh, [namely] se’eith and its secondary shade, for since there is no hair there [after becoming bald] he is excluded from the law applying to the head or the beard.
But all this is not so. For as long as the head or beard contain hair, they do not render the person impure at all by means of any of the colors of leprosy [since they are not “the skin of the body”]. But when baldness affects a certain part of the head, the hair falling out from its very roots, and that place becomes smooth and clear of any hair, and then there grows in that baldness a gold-colored thin hair¹⁰⁹Verse 30. — that is the impure plague [dealt with here]. It is for that reason that it is called nethek [of the root nothak — “to tear away”] because the hair has become removed from there, and it is not merely a name, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote. Rather, for as his name is, so is he,¹¹³I Samuel 25:25. for [in order that the law of nethek should apply], it is necessary that the hair falls out [on the head or the beard] in a place [at least] the size of a bean, and after the natural falling out of this first hair from that place, if that gold-colored “afflicted” hair springs up, it is a symptom of impurity. This does not apply if the gold-colored hair come there before the baldness. So also we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁴Negaim 7:1. “If [a bahereth] appeared on the head or the beard,¹¹⁵Now the head or the beard become impure only by a nethek (scall), and not by a bahereth; (a bright white spot). Thus when the bahereth first appeared on the head or the beard, the person remained pure. Later on when he became bald, in which case the law of bahereth might have applied, he also remains pure, because the bahereth preceded the baldness. and then the head or the beard became bald, they are pure. If it were on the head or the beard before these grew hair, and they then grew hair and again became bald, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov declares them impure, since both in the beginning and at the end they were impure. But the Sages declare them to be pure.” And with regards to gold-colored hair which precede [the nethek] we have also been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶Ibid., 10:4. “If gold-colored hair preceded the nethek (scall) it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah declares it impure. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: It neither renders the person impure, nor does it afford him protection.”¹¹⁷The law of hair which has become gold-colored because of the nethek provides that if there be two black hairs in it, the person is pure [although all the other hair have turned gold-colored]. But if there be in it two gold-colored hairs that were there before the nethek came, and turned the other black hair gold-colored, they do not afford protection to the nethek, and the person is impure. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s statement: “It neither renders the person impure [if all the hair turned gold-colored before the nethek appeared], nor does it afford protection” [thus we do not say that since it was naturally gold-colored before the nethek appeared, and not as a result of it, it is considered like black hair which renders the person pure, because although it is not in itself a symptom of the plague, it is nonetheless unable to protect the person from impurity unless its natural colors is black]. This whole topic is similarly taught also in the Sifra.¹¹⁸Torath Kohanim, Tazria 8:6.
The reason why Scripture does not mention “the baldness” at first [but instead begins Verse 29 before us by stating: If a man or woman hath an affliction upon the head or the beard], is because it mentioned with reference to the plague on the head or beard a “deep appearance” and “gold-colored hair,”¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and it is impossible that the appearance thereof should be deep in the same way that the color of the sun appears deeper than the shadow, as long as a person’s black natural hair is still upon him. Therefore Scripture spoke about the customary way of people, for when plagues come upon their head, [that part of the head] first becomes bald, and then a plague arises in the baldness, in which the thin short gold-colored hair grows. Then [in Verse 30] Scripture explains ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall), in order to make it quite clear that he is not to be declared impure unless there was a baldness.
Now in the opinion of most commentators¹¹⁹So clearly set forth by Rabad in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath, 8:1, and in 16:1. this plague, namely, the nethek, need not have a bahereth (a bright spot) or se’eith (rising) nor their subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). nor any change of appearance in the skin of the head, but as soon as the hair fell out from a spot the size of a bean on the head or beard, and is entirely uprooted from its roots, that is the plague, and if thin gold-colored hair appears in it, the person is impure. This is the leprosy of the head or of the beard.¹⁰⁹Verse 30. For Scripture first declared the person impure if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it gold-colored thin hair,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and then it mentioned that if the appearance thereof is not deeper than the skin, that the plague must be shut up for a week;¹²⁰Verse 31. then it declared him to be impure if [after this week] the nethek spread in the skin,¹²¹Verse 36. the sense thereof being that [in the case of the spreading of the nethek] the appearance thereof need not be deeper than the skin, nor different in any way [for him to be declared impure]. Now surely these two symptoms [of impurity in the nethek], namely, spreading of the plague and appearance of gold-colored hair, are alike in their laws. If so, the verses intend to teach us that whether the appearance of the nethek is as deep as the appearance of a bahereth, or whether it is not as deep or is not different in any way [from the rest of the skin], as soon as the baldness occurs, the person is rendered impure if gold-colored hair appears in it or if the nethek spreads in the skin. There are many Beraithoth¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. in the Sifra¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. taught on this subject.
Yet [despite all this] it would appear that after the hair falls off from a spot on the head, it is not to be deemed a plague until a bahereth or its subsidiary species appears in that bald spot, or a se’eith or its subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). and then the bahereth or se’eith renders the person impure if it grows gold-colored hair, just [as the bahereth or se’eith] render impure if in the skin of the flesh the black hair has turned white.¹²³Above, Verse 3. For our verse which mentions an affliction upon the head or the beard, and then states, and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. is alluding to the colors of the plagues previously mentioned,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. meaning specifically bahereth and its subsidiaries and also se’eith and its subsidiaries.¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). And this section is singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement not similar to the general proposition, namely, that the colors of the plagues on the head do not render a person impure until the hair has fallen off. The effect of this is sometimes a more lenient ruling, and sometimes a more stringent one. The more lenient ruling is that they do not render the person impure by means of white hair, and the more stringent one is that he is to be pronounced impure by reason of the gold-colored hair. And the interpretation of the verse, And if the priest see the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the plague of the scall seven days,¹²⁰Verse 31. is similar to that mentioned above [in the section dealing with the plagues of the skin of the flesh]: And if ‘bahereth’ (the bright spot) be white in the skin of the flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. for the expression ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall) [here in Verse 31] alludes to the principle that the [four] colors of the “plagues” apply to the nethek as well.
This matter requires further study of the Tosephta¹²⁴Literally: “Addition.” The Tosephta is a collection of Beraithoth, compiled by Rabbi Chiya, soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The books of the Tosephta follow closely those of the Mishnah. Hence the expression here, “the Tosephta to Tractate Negaim.” to Tractate Negaim. For we have been taught there as follows:¹²⁵Tosephta Negaim 1:2. “Nethakim (scalls) cause impurity in all colors, even white on black or black on white, and they cause impurity by means of thin yellow hair which appears to be gold-colored.” Thus far [is the language of the Tosephta]. It would appear from this text that there has to be in the bald part some [distinguishing] color of a plague, either white on the skin of a black-haired man, like the [four] colors of plagues, or even a black plague on the skin of a white-haired man, like “the black murphia” which doctors mention, since Scripture always speaks of ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall),¹²⁰Verse 31. indicating that there has to be a plague in the nethek, but it did not specify any colors for them as it did in the case of [the plagues of] the skin of the flesh. And the second section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head,¹¹²Further, Verse 40. teaches that the law of nethakim applies only if the hair falls off the middle of the head, and hair remains surrounding the nethek on all sides. But if the hair falls off from the back of the head, or towards the face, and that whole side becomes bald [and a plague appeared therein], its status is not to be determined by the symptoms of impurity of the head or beard [namely, gold-colored hair or the spreading of the nethek], but rather by the symptoms of plagues of the skin of the flesh [namely, the appearance of white hair or the spreading of the plague or quick flesh]. The reason for this [distinction between the various locations of the baldness of the head] is that it is in the nature of many people that some of their hair at the sides of the head, in the back or in front becomes bald, and the falling off of the hair there is no sign of sickness, but instead is like the rest of the body. But when the hair falls off from the middle of the head, the place where there normally is hair, it can only be a plague which caused it, that plague in our language being termed tinim,¹²⁶In one Ramban manuscript: tirna. and in Arabic it is called al sa’afah. Accordingly Scripture excluded from this law hair which falls out from the front of his head and the back, since it is usual for people to become bald at those places. And the verse which states, But if there be ‘bakarachath’ (in the bald towards the back of the head), or ‘bagabachath’ (the bald forehead), a reddish-white plague,¹²⁷Verse 42. means that these parts of the head convey impurity as does the rest of the body — by the [four] colors of plagues whether there is a reddish mixture in the white or it be a plain white. Scripture further states as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. This means that [if there is baldness towards the back of the head or the forehead] he is also certified absolutely as impure by quick flesh or the spreading of the plague, which is “the appearance of leprosy” that is certified absolutely as impure in plagues of the skin of the flesh. Now our Rabbis have mentioned that it is not certified as impure by means of white hair, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹²⁸Negaim 4:3. “Quick flesh causes impurity bakarachath (in baldness towards the back of the head), or bagabachath (baldness in the forehead), whereas it is not so with the white hair.” It is also so expressed in the Torath Kohanim.¹²⁹Torath Kohanim, Negaim 11:2.
But some of the commentators¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. stated that the sense of the Scriptural sections is to differentiate between a person afflicted with a nethek [which is discussed in Verses 29-37] and with baldness [as mentioned in Verses 40-44]; and the meaning of the matter is that karachath and gabachath both denote plucking out of the hair in such a manner that it will never grow again, such as where he applied a certain ointment to the hair of his head which caused it to fall out, or where it fell out at its roots naturally, when the moisture [feeding it] dried up. Thus the meaning of this section according to this opinion is that at first Scripture spoke [in Verses 29-37] of nethek, which is a falling off or cutting of the hair, similar to the expressions: ‘v’nathuk v’charuth’ (or torn off, or cut);¹³¹Further, 22:24. as soon as the soles of the priests’ feet ‘nithku’ (were drawn up) unto the dry ground.¹³²Joshua 4:18. Then Scripture states [in Verses 40-44] that if the head be yimareit, meaning that the hair was plucked out by force, thus leaving the bald and shiny like burnished brass,¹³³I Kings 7:45. similar to that which is written, it is furbished that it may glitter¹³⁴Ezekiel 21:15. which as is known will never grow hair again — that is not a nethek, but rather this man ‘keireiach hu’ (he is bald in the back of his head)¹³⁵Verse 40. or gibeiach hu’ (he is bald near his forehead),¹³⁶Verse 41. as other people who are bald, and he is clean¹³⁷Verses 40-41.. But if there be in this baldness towards the back or front of the head one of the [four] colors of plagues¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107., he will be subject to the same law of impurity as is the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, and through their symptoms, namely, quick flesh and the spreading of the plague in the skin [after having been shut up for a week]; except that the Sages in their interpretation excluded from [these symptoms of impurity] white hair [which in the skin of the flesh is a sign of impurity but not in baldness towards the back or front of the head]. The reason for this is that the hair of the head has been plucked out in such a way that it will never grow again, and even if a few hair appear by chance, they will never be black [so that they could through turning white on account of the plague, serve as a sign of impurity], nor will they have the characteristics of hair, but they will be merely some weak form thereof and white. This is the opinion of the French scholars in the commentary to Tractate Negaim.¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. The sense of the Mishnayoth and Beraithoth taught there [in that tractate] tend to support their words. If so, nethek [mentioned in Verses 29-37] is the sickness [called in Arabic] sa’afah [as stated above], or the well-known sicknesses called “the sickness of the fox,” and “the path of the snake,” all these being forms of sickness which can be remedied [so that the hair grows again]; but “the plucking out” of the hair [mentioned in Verses 40-44] is a form of baldness for which there is no help or remedy at all.

ואיש או אשה כי יהיה בו נגע בראש, “and a man or awoman who display signs of a plague on the head; (in the case of the woman))

או בזקן, or in the beard, (in the case of a man;)

ובו שער צהוב AND THERE BE IN IT A GOLD-COLOURED HAIR — This means that the black hair that was in it has turned into gold-coloured (cf. Rashi on v. 3).

נתק, a skin affliction in a part of the skin normally covered with hair is called a נתק. The word implies that the affliction uproots the hair follicles with the hair. This hair was not pulled out by human hands or by some kind of chemical or medication. The fact that some black hair remains in the skin proves that notwithstanding the other symptoms suggesting that the person suffering the affliction is ritually impure, the black hair’s presence saves him from such a determination by the priest.

שער צהב דק, thin blond or yellowish hair; according to Torat Kohanim the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this קל וחומר, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word צהב, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a נתק, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of Torat Kohanim did not spell out a קל וחומר saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in Torat Kohanim you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the קל וחומר we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word צהב, yellowish, demolish the validity of the קל וחומר?

נתק, the name applied to these kinds of scabs in the area where the hair grows.

נתק הוא, “it is a scall.” This kind of tzoraat is so named as the hair has been removed from that spot. The word is used in halachah for certain commandments which are considered as separated, literally “torn away” from where they belong (Chulin 141) [When a negative commandment appears in the guise of a positive commandment it is considered as לאו הניתק לעשה, “a negative commandment couched in terms of a positive commandment”. As a result, generally speaking, the penalty normally applicable when violating a negative commandment does not apply in such a case. Ed.] The expression נתק also occurs in Joshua 4,18 in connection with the priests who carried the Holy Ark into and across the Jordan. The text says נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים, “the soles of the feet of the priests were separated, pulled, etc.”
After the original hair had been pulled out, if subsequently the new hair is blond, thin, this is a sign of ritual impurity (contamination caused by the disease). The bald spot contaminates either by blond (yellow) hair or expansion of the afflicted area. (Negaim 10,1). If, however the hair which grows back from that follicle is black, this is a sign that the affliction has healed and the priest can declare such a person as ritually pure (after he has undergone the necessary procedures).

The black hair in it [turned] golden. [Rashi knows this] from that which is written (v. 31): “When the kohein will see the skin eruption of nesek,” [thus,] “skin-eruption” is connected to “nesek”: Just as [we find concerning] the skineruption the white hair in it only makes one impure if it turned [from being black], so too, a nesek, the golden hair in it only makes one impure if it turned, as if it said: “And the hair in the skin-eruption turned golden.”

ובו שער צהוב, “and there is yellow hair on it;” the skin on which hair growth is usually rougher than the skin on which no hair grows. Therefore, when yellow hair appears it is a sure sign that the flesh beneath it is dead and weak.

נתק הוא — this (נתק) is the name of a plague which is on the spot where hair grows.

Such is the name. Otherwise, why does it change the name of this impure skin-eruption from the name of the impure skin-eruption [mentioned] above, as it is written (v. 25): “it is the skin-eruption of tzora’as”? (Re’m).

I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned וטמא אותו הכהן, instead of the shorter וטמאו, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word אותו is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: וטמא אותו, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of Torat Kohanim had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that only it and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of Torat Kohanim has written every other time the Torah wrote וטמא אותו instead of וטמאו, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word אותו to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word דק which preceded the word אותו for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and rely on his reader to read his mind so as not to arrive at a faulty conclusion about his true intentions. You will find that after explaining the exclusion contained in the word אותו, our author of Torat Kohanim explains the exclusion contained in the sequence of the words וטמא אותו הכהן נתק הוא using only the word הוא in that sequence as an exclusion. The reason he did so is because he had already used the word אותו in the sense we explained.

דק, “thin;” as a result, any hair that grows on that skin is also weaker and the growth is less dense.

You may reason that if all this is correct, why do we not use a קל וחומר type of reasoning to prove that just as the colour yellow results in the afflicted person becoming ritually impure when he contracted a נתק, the same should hold true for yellowish hair in other situations where hair is a factor in the afflicted person contracting ritual impurity in connection with skin turned white? The logic is simple. If a white hair which which does not confer ritual impurity when present in a נתק, nevertheless confers ritual impurity when present with other skin afflictions, then a yellow hair which even confers ritual impurity when present only in a נתק, certainly confers ritual impurity when it appears in conjunction with other skin afflictions. Perhaps the very fact that the Torah needed to exclude white as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in the case of a scall was equivalent to telling us that we should not engage in learning the קל וחומר in reverse as applying to situations such as בהרת או שאת. You may wish to read what we have written on Leviticus 14,7 in connection with the Baraitha which explains why the person afflicted with צרעת has to experience seven sprinklings of מים חיים in his purification process as opposed to the person who contacted ritual impurity through contact with a dead body, and who has to undergo only two such sprinklings one each on the third and on the seventh day of his purification rites. This is so in spite of the fact that I could have arrived at the opposite conclusion by using the קל וחומר type of reasoning.

נתק, “it is a scall;” the area on which hair grows is called נתק, the word being a derivative of the verb לנתק, “to tear out,” or “tear apart.”

In that instance, the author falls back on the explanation of the word צהב he has given on our verse here. Why is the colour צהב the only one which confers impurity in the case of a scall? Torat Kohanim explains that this colour symbolises gold. Maimonides explains in his commentary on tractate Nega-im 6,1 that צהב is a colour which is a mixture of red and green. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains it as follows: "The word means something close to egg-white in Arabic." It appears therefore that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understood the word צהב as ivory coloured. We, who live under Mohammedan rule, know that the Arabic word tzahov means some kind of dim white. This would all contradict the opinion expressed by the Tannaim in the Mishnah. I do not see what purpose would be served to explain words in the Torah in terms of the Arabic language; this would lead to making our Torah into a book of lies, G'd forbid. What is so objectionable in our traditional sources explaining the word צהב as yellowish-gold? I am afraid that Rabbi Ibn Ezra lent his hand to those who make a mockery of our holy Torah. Anyone who toys with commentaries of this nature would do better to suppress them and not to publish them.

ושער שחור אין בו AND THERE IS NO BLACK HAIR IN IT [THE PRIEST SHALL SHUT HIM UP] — Consequently, if there is black hair in it, he is clean, and does not require to be shut up — for black hair is a characteristic of cleanness in cases of נתקים, as it is stated, (v. 37) “if there is black hair grown up in it … [he is clean]” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 8 9).

ושער שחור אין בו והסגיר, if there had been black hair the person would be ritually completely pure and does not need to be isolated even for further examination purposes. This is spelled out clearly in verse 37.

If there was a black hair in it, he is [ritually] clean. [Rashi explains this] so that you will not explain: “And behold! it does not appear deeper than the skin,” even if it has a black hair, and I might think that a black hair is a sign of impurity, or if it has no black hair, even if its appearance is deeper than the skin, it requires confinement, and the ו of ושער שחור is like או (or). Therefore, Rashi explains that everything depends on the black hair, as it says: “And a black hair [grew in it, the nesek is healed, he is clean].”

ושער שחור אין בו, “and there is no black hair on that area of the skin;” this is an additional sign of ritual purity. One may well ask what the situation is if only one of these symptoms is present? The author of b’chor shor states that this depends on the disagreement in the Mishnah between Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yoshiah in the Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 66. According to one opinion the absence of two symptoms is needed in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually clean; according to the other opinion the absence either of the two symptoms discussed suffices.

וכי יראה, same as אם יראה, “if or when he sees.”

'והנה לא פשה וגו‏‎‎‎ AND BEHOLD IF [THE SCAB] SPREAD NOT etc. — Consequently, if it spreads or there is in it gold-coloured hair it is unclean.

Or there was in it a golden hair. [Rashi explains this so] that you should not infer: “And behold, it did not spread,” even though it has a golden hair, or if it does not have a golden hair, even though it spread, it [only] requires confinement, and the ו of “ולא היה בו שער צהוב (and there was no golden hair in it)” is instead of או (or). If it had both signs, however, it would be definitely impure. Rather, you should infer as follows: “And behold, it did not spread” — and also — “there was no golden hair in it” — then, it requires confinement, as it implies: “And behold! the nesek did not spread and there was no golden hair in it,” the ו adds to the first subject. However, if it spread, even though it does not have a golden hair, or if it has a golden hair, even though it did not spread, it is unclean, as it is clearly written later in this section (v. 36): “The kohein shall see him and behold! the nesek has spread in the skin. The kohein shall not [even] look...” This implies that he is impure immediately when it spreads even though there is no golden hair. Consequently, we say the opposite as well: If there is a golden hair even though it did not spread [it is impure] (Re’m).

והתגלח AND HE SHALL CUT HIS HAIR around the scall,

THEN SHALL HE BE SHAVEN, BUT ‘V’ETH HANETHEK’ (THE SCALL) SHALL HE NOT SHAVE. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse warns that he should not use a razor on the place of the nethek, for even though there is no hair on it, yet if he passes the razor over it the skin will be scratched causing hair to grow in it; for such is the nature of people who have scabs on their heads, and all those who make their hair to fall off, to scratch the place on the head and also to make certain cuts in it with a knife.
But in the Torath Kohanim the Sages interpreted the verse as follows:¹³⁸Torath Kohanim, Negaim 9:7. “But the ‘nethek’ shall he not shave. But what is there to shave there?” That is to say, has not the hair fallen off from it? [So what need is there for Scripture to warn him not to shave it?] “Rather, the verse means, around the nethek he is not to shave. How can we explain this? He shaves the space outside it, but leaves [a circle] of two hairs [width] next to the nethek, so that it should be possible to discern if it spreads.” It is this which Onkelos translated: “and he shall shave around the scall, and that which is within the scall he shall not shave,” for he is to leave on all its sides a row of two hairs in order to recognize [at the end of seven days] if the nethek has spread [in which case the priest will pronounce him impure]. And the meaning of the word v’eth [v’eth hanethek] is then like the expression, and David came near ‘eth’ the people, and he saluted them,¹³⁹I Samuel 30:21. which means that he came near them but he did not enter into their midst. [Here too it would mean, “and ‘in’ the nethek itself he shall not shave.”] Or it may be that the meaning of v’eth is like im (with), with the word asher (which) missing, the verse thus stating: “and that [i.e., the hair] which is ‘with’ the nethek he shall not shave.” There are many such cases in Scripture.

והתגלח ואת הנתק לו יגלח, “he is to shave himself, but he shall not shave off the netek.” Nachmanides writes that according to the plain meaning the Torah forbids the afflicted party to allow the razor to touch the afflicted area even though it is not covered with any hair. However, if the razor is allowed to touch that area it will cause injury to the skin that will result in hair growing from such a spot. However, in Torat Kohanim we find that the wordsואת הנתק are understood to mean “and around the netek,” in line with Rashi’s interpretation that he must leave two hairs unshaven so as to know the extent of the netek. Nachmanides (on verse 29) wrote at length about whether such an irregularity of the skin, not especially defined, results in ritual impurity of the afflicted person.

והתגלח, “he shall shave;” seeing that we find “shaving” also in connection with the priest when it is being performed by himself, (Leviticus 21,5), I might have thought that the person that had been afflicted with tzoraat, would also have to do this himself, the Torah employs the reflexive mode to show that anyone can perform this procedure. He may use any means, not only a razor to perform this removal of hair.

ואת הנתק לא יגלח BUT THE SCALL ITSELF HE SHALL NOT CUT THE HAIR OF — this means that he leaves a row of two hairs quite close to it around it in order that it may become discernible if it (the scall) spreads, for if it spreads it passes the hair and will extend to the spot where the hair has been cut off (Mishnah Negaim 10:5; Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 7).

והתגלח, “he is to be shaved;” even if he is a Nazirite, and his term of being such has not yet expired. [Nazirites are forbidden to shave their hair. Ed.]

ואת הנתק לא יגלח, “but he must not shave off the scall;” Rashi understands this to mean that he must leave at last two hairs in place so that it can be determined if the area of the scall has expanded. The only way the status of the scall can be judged is by hairs

וכבס בגדיו וטהר, “and after having immersed his garments in a ritual bath he shall be ritually pure.” He will not confer ritual impurity through touch lying or sitting on something or having marital relations.

וטהר, he will also become ritually pure (if he is a Nazirite) although as such he should have let his hair grow wild, etc.

אחרי טהרתו [AND IF THE SCALL SPREADS AT ALL …] AFTER HIS BEING PRONOUNCED CLEAN — I have here only the statement that he is unclean if it spreads after he has been freed from the quarantine; whence do I know that the same applies if it has spread by the end of the first week and or by the end of the second week? Because it states here: “if it spreads at all” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 9).

'והנה פשה הנתק בעור וגו, “and behold if the scall be spread in the skin, etc. טמא הוא, “he is ritually contaminated.” This entire verse appears superfluous; we had already read that “if the scall did not spread out on the afflicted person the priest will declare him ritually clean, (verse 35)” is ritually contaminated clean (remains that way). If you were to argue that if not for this verse, I would give a different interpretation to our verse here namely” “if the scab spread and there is no single black hair he remains ritually contaminated, but if there is only one such symptom, namely the spreading out of the scall, this would not result in the person under discussion becoming declared ritually contaminated, or as the case maybe, to become ritually contaminated.

ושער שחור AND [THERE BE] BLACK HAIR — Whence do I know that this applies also to yellow or reddish hair which also, like black hair here mentioned, are not gold-coloured? Because it states ושער “and hair” (whatever its colour may be) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 14). The expression צָהוֹב denotes anything like the appearance of gold, and צהוב is equivalent to זהוב, orpàle in old French (English = pale gold).

טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן, "he is 'clean;' and the priest shall declare him "clean" (ritually pure)." This apparent repetition is explained in the Torat Kohanim as follows: We would have thought that it suffices if the priest simply allows the afflicted person whose נתק has remained unchanged in appearance except that black hair grew on it, to go back to the camp; to teach me that this is not sufficient, the Torah tells us that the priest must first declare such a person as "clean." I would also have thought that if the priest erred and erroneously declared a ritually impure person "clean," that he would henceforth be considered "clean;" this is why the Torah had to write טהור, he is objectively "clean;" the priest merely confirms it. This is an exegesis which Hillel taught when he came from Babylonia as the scholars in Israel at the time had been unable to furnish proof for this halachah from the text of the Torah (compare Jerusalem Talmud Pessachim 6,1). We need to understand why the scholars who had disagreed with Hillel at that time did so.

Tzohov [is] like zohov. That which Rashi explains this here and not above [where it says] (v. 30): “and there is a golden hair in it,” is because above it could be explained that whatever is not black is called tzohov, but after he explains that red and green are included in the word “ושער (and hair)” and are included in “black,” if so, it poses a difficulty: What does tzohov mean? Thus, he explains, etc. (Devek Tov).

ואם בעיניו עמד הנתק, “but if the appearance of the scall has remained static, etc.;” we need to examine what new dimension of the subject has been added by this verse. We already know that if no change had occurred in the symptoms’ appearance that the afflicted person is ritually clean. Perhaps the Torah wished to spell out the law that when a black hair had begun to sprout on the surface under discussion this does not hurt his status. [According to Rashi, it teaches that if the priest had mistakenly declared this person to be ritually unclean he remains so until the priest reverses his decree. Ed.]

ושער שחור צמח בו, “and black hair had grown on it.” The letter ו at the beginning of the word: ושער is not conjunctive, but means “or.” Examples of similar uses of the letter ו are found in Exodus 21,15: מכה אביו ואמו, “if someone strikes father or mother;” and in Exodus 12,5: מן הכבשים ומן העזים תקחו, “you are to take from the goats or from the sheep; here too the words ושער mean: או שער, or black hair (grew).

טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן HE IS CLEAN AND THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN — Consequently a person who is really unclean whom the priest pronounces clean is not clean. [It is true that the declaration is left to the priest — as pointed out by Rashi on v. 2 — but if he erred or willfully pronounced the unclean person clean it is of no effect for Scripture states: he is clean and the priest then — and then only — shall pronounce him clean] (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 9 16).

Thus, an unclean [person]. Is not clean. You should not say since it is a Scriptural decree that the impurity and purity of skin-eruptions depends on the kohein’s declaration, [and] although a skin-eruption has all the signs of impurity he is not impure as long as the kohein does not say, “impure,” the same applies if he has signs of impurity and the kohein declares him pure he will be pure. Therefore, it lets us know: “He is clean, and the kohein shall declare him clean,” etc. Re’m writes: “The same applies if he was pure and the kohein declared him impure, he is not impure.” This lets us know that the impurity of skin-eruptions and their purity are only according to the word of the kohein, and the explanation is thus: Although a pure person developed certain signs of impurity, he only loses his previous presumption (chazokoh) [of being pure] by the word of the kohein who says to him, “You are impure.” The proof is from a bridegroom and festival (see Rashi 13:14). Similarly, a person that was certainly impure who was healed and developed the signs of purity only loses his chazokoh of being impure by the word of the kohein who tells him, “You are pure.” (Nachalas Yaakov). The same applies if he was pure and the kohein declared him impure and erred, he will be pure. You need not ask: Why did Scripture not write this, which would be a greater novelty — that we are lenient and do not pay attention to that which the kohein declared him impure? [The answer is:] It is obvious that immediately when the kohein’s error in declaring him impure is discovered it will be as if the kohein never said anything. Consequently, the person is pure. This is not so regarding someone who is truly impure and the kohein erred to declare him pure, [it is not enough to say that it is as if the kohein never said anything], for the kohein needs to explicitly declare him impure, since any truly impure person is only impure when the kohein declares him impure (Divrei Dovid).

It seems clear that the meaning of the line is as explained by Torat Kohanim. If the word טהור had not appeared, I would naturally have assumed that the priest, who is after all the expert in all these laws, would decide the status of the person in question. As a result, if the priest is aware that there is a בהק, a dull white spot, he will release the person from his quarantine so that he can go home to his family. The Torah therefore writes both טהור וטהרו to inform us that there is a formality to be observed. This exegesis could not be confirmed until Hillel returned to the land of Israel and quoted it in the name of his teachers Shmayahu and Avtalyon. Let us now return to the statement that this ruling of Hillel (resp. his teachers) is good only if the priest did not err and declare someone as "clean" whose skin had not undergone the necessary changes. Do not ask that perhaps what the Torah meant with the word טהור was that even if the afflicted person was himself aware that he was "clean" by then, the priest's declaration was still essential for him to resume his normal life. Such reasoning is very forced and if one had to choose between both possible approaches Hillel's exegesis is far superior. Seeing that the reasoning we apply is the basis of a religious ruling, it is preferable to accept the approach of Torat Kohanim rather than getting involved in forced explanations.

טהור הוא, “he is ritually pure;” the reason is that the plague has not changed for the worse, or that growth of black hair proves that the follicle it grew out of is healthy, and the flesh surrounding it has not become weaker.

I have seen a statement in Vayikra Rabbah 22,1 that there is nothing in the way of Torah exegesis which had not been taught to Moses while he was on Mount Sinai, including what renowned scholars thought they revealed for the first time in the distant future. At the same time we have a statement in Bamidbar Rabbah 19,6 that Rabbi Akiva expounded exegetically matters which even Moses did not know. The Midrash is based on a verse in Isaiah 42,16: "these things (such as making the blind see, etc.) I have done (G'd speaking)." It does not say there that G'd will do these things in the future, but that He has already done them. When did He do them? When He revealed to Rabbi Akiva and his colleagues Torah insights He had not even revealed to Moses." Thus far the Midrash. We appear to be faced with a contradiction between the two Midrashim we have quoted. Many statements in a similar vein abound in our Midrashic literature.

I think we have to understand these statements in the following manner: It is true that everything which is of a Biblical nature was revealed to Moses and no one since has become privy to something Moses did not already know at that time. The difference between Moses and subsequent generations of scholars is that Moses had been given both the written and the oral Torah from G'd directly. G'd, in His wisdom, had recorded all the parts of the oral Torah He had revealed to Moses in the written Torah also. He had not, however, revealed to Moses where all the parts of the oral Torah He had taught him were to be found in the written Torah. The labour of discovering all these allusions to the oral Torah in the written Torah was left for all the Torah scholars after Moses. It is their task to find proof in the written Torah for all the halachot G'd had taught Moses orally. The reason the scholars of the Mishnaic period compiled commentaries such as Torat Kohanim was to provide us with the key that enables us to find where the oral law is anchored in the written law. This labour is an ongoing process and it remains our task to establish this linkage between the oral and the written law. The labour is generally called ארץ החיים. Moses was not informed about all this and this is why the sages could state that Rabbi Akiva had become privy to insights not even revealed to Moses. The proof of how this works is found in Hillel's reconstructing from the written text a הלכה which had been revealed to Moses at the time but whose "anchor" in the written Torah had been unknown until that time.

בהרות are SPOTS.

כהות לבנות DULL WHITE — It means that their whiteness is not intense but a dull white.

כהות לבנות, below that which appears like the skin of an egg concerning which the sages taught us (Maimonides Tum’at Tzoraat 1,11

בהק A BRIGHTNESS — just like the white which shows itself in the flesh of a ruddy man, who is termed rouge in old French, between his red spots: this is called בהק “brightness” — like a man who is covered with lentil-like spots, when between one lentil-like spot and another the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness.

קרח הוא טהור הוא HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN — clean from the uncleanness of נתק (a scall in a hairy spot) (Sifra, Braita d'Rabbi Yishmael 15), for he is not subject to the law about the symptoms of the head or the beard, which are places where hair grows, but to that about the symptoms of a plague on the skin of the flesh — [white hair], healthy flesh or the spreading of the plague.

ואיש כי ימרט ראשו, “or if a man loses the hair on his head;” baldness of women is not mentioned here seeing that her head does not become bald. (Talmud, tractate Nedarim folio 30)

איש, from the fact that the Torah speaks only of איש, “a man,” how do we know that the same law applies to both women and minors? We know this from the superfluous word צרוע in verse 44. We know that this term applies to every category of human being.

ואם מפאת בניו AND IF FROM THE CORNER OF HIS FACE [THERE FALLS OFF THE HAIR OF HIS HEAD] — The area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the face is called גבחת (and that explains why the man suffering from such a malady is here called גבח) — and the temples on both sides are also included; and the area from the slope of one’s skull in the direction of the back of his head is termed קרחת (hence the term קרח in v. 40) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 10 7).

נגע לבן אדמדם A RISING OF THE SORE REDDISH-WHITE — variegated (the term לבנה אדמדמת does not signify white and red each separately, but mingled: reddish-white). Whence may we learn that the plague is unclean too if it has the other colours (not variegated, but plain white shades of white which are the distinguishing characteristics of the plagues)? Because it states here: נגע, a plague (it describes it as a ‘‘plague” and therefore all colors applicable to a “plague” apply to it also).

בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “on his bald head or bald forehead.” It is irrelevant if the area concerned normally produces a growth of hair or if it does not.

כמראה צרעת עור בשר AS THE COLOUR OF LEPROSY IN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH — it is like the colour of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with the plague on the skin of the flesh (v. 2): “When a man hath in the skin of his flesh …”.What is stated about that? That it makes one unclean by reason of four shades of white, and that it is subject to the law of quarantine during two weeks. And it is not to be treated like the colour of the leprosy mentioned in the case of the boil (v 18) or burn (v. 24) which though also unclean by reason of four shades of white are, however, subject to the law of quarantine for one week only, (i. e if at the end of the week there is neither white hair, nor has it spread the priest at once declares him clean); nor must it be treated as the colour of נתקין on a spot where hair grows — which do not make a person unclean by cause of four colours: a שאת and its subspecies, and that of a בהרת and its subspecies.

בראשו נגעו HIS PLAGUE IS ON HIS HEAD — I have only a statement that the following laws apply to the case of נתקין, plagues on hairy places! Whence may we learn that there are included the sufferers from all other kinds of leprous plagues? Because it states מא יטמאנו‎ט, “he shall in any case proclaim him unclean” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12 2)— thus including all of these: regarding all of these it says: “his garments shall be rent etc.”.

צרוע הוא טמא הוא, he is "leprous," he is ritually impure. It appears best to approach these words in the same way Hillel approached the words טהור הוא וטהרו הכהן in verse 37. Here the force of the exegesis is even more convincing as the word צרוע refers to the body of the afflicted person whereas we still require that the priest declare him to be ritually impure. This means that legally speaking, his symptoms notwithstanding, the afflicted person would not be considered subject to the laws of impurity until the priest had declared him to be impure.

טמא הוא, טמא יטמאנו הכהן, “he is ritually impure, the priest has to declare him as impure.” In verse 37 in a parallel situation the Torah used similar syntax writing טהור הוא, וטהרו הכהן, “he is ritually pure, and the priest shall declare him as ritually pure.” From both of these verses we learn that even though the priest has observed unmistakable signs of either purity or impurity it is essential for him to confirm this by saying so. We have been taught at the end of the first chapter of the Tossephta of Nega-im that this was one of the reasons that prompted Hillel to return to the land of Israel from Babylon. He wanted to make certain that these procedures are understood and followed to the letter. He moved to Israel in order to explain the reasons for these rules to the local Rabbinical authorities.

Other afflicted persons. Meaning: I [know] only of nesokin that require that “his garments shall have a tear in them and his hair...” You might ask: Rashi should explain this on [the verse that follows:] “His garments shall have a tear in them.” The answer is: This is Rashi’s view: Do not think you should say [the phrase] “his skin-eruption is on his head” is extra, as [I might think since] the entire section speaks about the head. Perforce, it comes to include other types of afflicted persons. You cannot say this, because we only learn from “his skin-eruption is on his head” other afflicted persons that are [of the sort] of skin-eruptions of nesokim, which resemble the baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, both of which are in the head — that his garments shall have a tear in them and all the rest of the laws of the impurity of baldness in back of the head or in front of the head, and that the kohein shall declare them impure. From where [do I know] to include even the other afflicted persons with tzora’as of the skin or flesh — that the ones afflicted with them shall tear their garments, their hair shall grow long, and the rest of the [matters] mentioned, and that the kohein shall declare them impure? The Torah states: “טמא יטמאנו (shall surely declare him unclean),” a twice repeated verb, to include all of them. This is what Rashi concludes at the end: “Regarding all of them it says: ‘His clothes shall have a tear in them’” (Re’m).

איש צרוע, “he is a man afflicted with tzoraat;” all the rules discussed in this chapter affecting such people apply to what follows.

The reason the Torah repeated טמא הוא is to make it clear that if the priest had erred and had declared a person as ritually impure although his symptoms did not justify this, the priest's declaration is invalid. The reason the Torah also repeated טמא יטמאנו is explained in Torat Kohanim as including all other categories of ritual impurity. A person never becomes legally impure due to symptoms on his skin unless the priest has declared him to be so.

צרוע הוא, he is "leprous." Why does the Torah not use the expression צרעת הוא in order to describe the affliction as it has done repeatedly? Perhaps the Torah wanted to indicate G'd's extreme displeasure with a person whom He has afflicted with this disease in such exposed areas of the skin of the head and beard. Most other afflictions listed in our portion occur in more private parts of the body. Generally speaking, G'd displays great concern for the sensitivities of a person even when He punishes him. The person described here as צרוע has forfeited the consideration G'd normally shows even to sinners; this is why he is described as a "leper" throughout. The words בראשו נגעו that his affliction is already in his head, is the justification for calling him a צרוע.

פרומים signifies TORN.

והצרוע, “and the person afflicted with tzoraat,” Torat Kohanim includes a High Priest in the procedures detailed here, although the Torah had stated elsewhere that the High Priest must not rend his garments (when a relative of his has died, compare Leviticus 21,10). [I see nothing remarkable or contradictory here as a) the rule that he does not rend his garments has nothing to do with its becoming afflicted with a skin problem; b) others could do it on his behalf. Ed.]

והצרוע אשר בו הנגע בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע ועל שפם יעטה, “and the person afflicted with the tzoraat,- his garments shall be torn, the hair of his head shall remain unshorn, and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” According to Midrash Eycha Rabbati (introduction) the word הצרוע may be understood as a reference to the Temple (after its destruction); the words אשר בו הנגע may be understood as idolatry which contaminates in a manner similar to the skin affliction. The words בגדיו יהיו פרומים are a reference to the priestly garments (their condition after the Temple had been destroyed); the words וראשו יהיה פרוע are a reference to the Shechinah which has departed from the Temple Mount; the words ועל שפם יעטה refer to the neglect of Torah study and observance which was also a by- product of the loss of the Temple and political independence. The use of the words טמא twice in the verse mean that it speaks of the destruction of both the first and the second Temple.

[So that people] will keep away from him. Not that he should call others impure as what seems to be understood from Scripture.

His hair shall be grown long. This is to atone for haughtiness of spirit, for he wanted to be the head over everyone else. His garments shall have a tear in them to atone for stinginess, because miserly people generally have torn and patched clothing. He must cover his head down to his upper lip to atone for the sin of the speech he spoke with his lips. He shall call out, “unclean, unclean,” for someone who besmirches others with his speech shall be called unclean as well, for [the reason he besmirched them is that] he certainly found his own faults in them.

והצרוע, “and the so afflicted person;” even if he happens to be the High Priest of whom it has been written in the Torah (Leviticus 21,10) that he must not let his hair grow loose nor rend his garments [as signs of mourning, Ed.] when faced with the problem discussed here he must ignore what is written in chapter 21. (Sifra)

פרוע means his head shall be over-grown with hair (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 6).

ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cloak himself up to his lips.” This means that he is to keep his mouth covered so that his breath does not offend anyone around him as it contains bacteria harmful to others.

בגדיו יהיו פרומים, “his clothes shall be rent;” this will serve as a symbol that he mourns over his errors which led to him becoming afflicted. (Ibn Ezra)

ועל שפם יעטה AND HE SHALL COVER HIS LIPS as one who mourns for the dead (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; cf. Onkelos).

ועל שפם יעטה, “and he shall cover his upper lip.” This is to stop bad smell coming forth from his mouth which might affect people negatively. (Ibn Ezra)

שפם denotes the hair on the lips; grenon in old French, (English = moustache).

וטמא טמא יקרא AND HE SHALL CALL OUT, UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN — he must proclaim aloud that he is unclean, so that people may keep away from him (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 7; Moed Katan 5a).

בדד ישב HE SHALL ABIDE SOLITARY — This means that people who are unclean from other causes than that of leprosy shall not abide with him (Pesachim 67a; cf. Sifra). Our Rabbis said: Why is he (the leper) treated differently from other unclean persons that he should abide solitary? They replied: Because he, by slanderous statements, (cf. Numbers 12:10) parted man and wife, or a man from his friend, he must be parted from everybody (Arakhin 16b).

כל ימי אשר הנגע בו, all the days that the plague is within him, etc. This means that as long as his sin is still part of him he remains in the state of ritual impurity. The emphasis expressed by the words טמא הוא after the word יטמא is a reminder of Jeremiah 2,19 where the prophet exclaims: תיסרך רעתך, "your discipline has been the result of your wickedness." In other words it was not G'd who inflicted these misfortunes on the sinner but the sins he committed. Jeremiah expresses a similar thought in Lamentations 3,39: "Of what shall a living man complain?! Each one of his own sins." Yalkut Shimoni item 1040 on this verse is worth studying. You may want to read what I have written on Genesis 4,4 אם תיטיב שאת.

בדד ישב, “he shall remain in isolation.” The reason for this isolation is that this disease is very contagious and even indirect contact with the afflicted person will harm those associating with him. Nachmanides writes that neither the symptoms described by the Torah as afflicting garments, nor those afflicting houses, are natural phenomena, found in any civilisation. As long as the Jewish people conduct themselves according to the laws of the Torah they will remain protected by the spirit of Hashem, so that none of the diseases described in our portion would ever befall them. In the event that an individual would experience any of the symptoms we have discussed here, this would be a warning by the Shechinah that he had been guilty of a misdemeanour, designed to make him do penance before he would become subject to a severe penalty for his transgression. Seeing that the Torah introduced the subject as if it were a divine gift, i.e. ונתתי נגע צרעת בבית ארץ אחוזתכם, “I will give a nega tzoraat on one of the houses that constitute a hereditary possession in the land you have acquired as a permanent possession,” (Leviticus 14,34) it is clear that the whole subject reflects G’d’s concern not to allow us to become sin-ridden. By striking our house instead of our body, G’d issued a warning signal to us to mend our ways. The entire legislation is applicable only in a land that has become ours as an inheritance given to us by G’d. The same applies to the legislation concerning such symptoms appearing on our clothing. If these symptoms were to appear on our clothing in any country other than the Holy Land, this is meaningless in terms of Jewish law, and any means at any time may be employed to remove such symptoms. No one has ever been heard of being afflicted with these symptoms either in Babylon, or any other country Jews were exiled to. [Besides, miraculous involvement by G’d in this manner is predicated on only a few individuals not observing Torah. Just as the Sotah rites were discontinued when marital infidelity became common place, even though there was a Temple and High Priest, and just as the yibbum legislation (levirate marriage) was observed in the negative aspect of it, chalitza, once it could not be presumed that the brother-in-law would perform the rite in order to secure his deceased brother’s continuity on this earth, so the laws described here were intended for a near perfect Jewish society only. Ed.] While in effect, the laws concerning the symptoms on garments applied only on white garments, seeing that the stains on coloured garments looking like the symptoms described here might be attributed to having been caused during dying the garment or the threads the garments were made of.

By his slanderous tongue, he separated. For this reason he is called a metzoro — מוציא רע — one who slanders.

בדד ישב, “he is to dwell in solitude.” The reason is that this is a disease which is catching, and by remaining where he used to live he would infect his neighbours. He is also not permitted to carry on marital relations with his wife. He would find it difficult to perform his duty.

בדד ישב, “he must dwell in isolation;” he must not have marital relations, as doing this would cause rot. (Talmud, Moed Katan, folio 7)

מחוץ למחנה WITHOUT THE CAMP — outside the three camps (see Rashi on Leviticus 4:12; cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 13 14 and Pesachim 67a).

Beyond the three encampments. Meaning: From that which is written: “He shall dwell alone,” which implies that even other impure persons, [such as] a zov (one with a discharge) or impure person due to [defilement by] a corpse, should not sit with him. If so, perforce, “beyond the encampment” means beyond the three encampments, for an impure person from a corpse is permitted to be in the Levite camp but prohibited from the camp of the Shechinoh, and the zov is prohibited in the Levite camp but permitted in the Israelite camp, as it is written (Bamidbar 5:3): “and they not cause impurity in their camps (מחניהם),” and it does not say “מחנם.” This implies you should give one camp to this one and one camp to that one; one camp for the impure person due to [defilement by a] a corpse, and one camp for the zov. I will write more about this, God willing.

מחוץ למחנה מושבו, “his residence must be beyond the boundaries of the camp.” His residence itself is ritually impure;” the disease from which he suffers is contagious to people who conduct social intercourse with him. This is the source for the statement in the Sifra here that if a ritually unclean person sits under a tree and a ritually clean person stands in front of him (under the branches), the previously ritually clean person has become ritually contaminated. If the situation is reversed, the ritually pure person remains ritually pure.

AND WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. This is not in the natural order of things, nor does it ever happen in the world [outside Israel], and similarly leprosy of houses¹⁴⁰Further, 14:33-53. [is not a natural phenomenon]. But when Israel is wholly devoted to G-d, then His spirit is upon them always, to maintain their bodies, clothes and houses in a good appearance. Thus as soon as one of them commits a sin or transgression, a deformity appears in his flesh, or on his garment, or in his house, revealing that G-d has turned aside from him. It is for this reason that Scripture states, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the Land of your possession,¹⁴¹Ibid., 14:34. meaning that it is G-d’s punishment upon that house. Thus [the law of leprosy of houses] applies only in the Land which is the inheritance of the Eternal¹⁴²II Samuel 20:19. See Vol. I, pp. 250-251, and Ramban further, Leviticus 18:25. even as He said, When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession.¹⁴¹Ibid., 14:34. Now the reason [why this law does not apply outside the Land of Israel] is not because it is a duty which attaches to the ground¹⁴³The general rule is: “Any religious duty that does not depend on the Land [but affects personal conduct], must be observed whether in the Land [of Israel] or outside it, and any religious duty that depends on the land, is to be observed in the Land [of Israel] alone, etc.” (Kiddushin 36b-37a). Ramban is now pointing out that the reason why the law of leprosy in houses does not apply outside the Land of Israel is not because it attaches to the land, but for the reason etc., but the reason is because this matter [of Divine indication of sins] occurs only in the Chosen Land, wherein the Glorious Name dwells. And in the Torath Kohanim the Sages further interpreted¹⁴⁴Torath Kohanim, Metzora 5:3. that a house does not contract impurity until after the conquest and division [of the Land by Israel], and until after each and every individual clearly knows his portion. The reason for this law is that only then do they have the ease of mind to know the Eternal, and the Divine Glory dwells among them. I think similarly with reference to the law of leprosy in garments, that it applies only in the Land [of Israel], it being unnecessary to exclude [the application of this law] in places outside the Land, since they never occur there. For this reason also the law of leprosy in garments applies only to white garments, not to colored ones, because the color might perhaps have extracted this unclean phenomenon [i.e., the leprosy] in that place [in the garment] in a natural way, and it will then not be regarded as a finger of G-d.¹⁴⁵Exodus 8:15. Therefore garments colored by Heaven can contract impurity, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon.¹⁴⁶Negaim 11:3. And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason why it repeats in every verse the expression “the garment, or the skin, or the wrap and the woof,”¹⁴⁷See Verses 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59. is because the matter is miraculous. Our Rabbis have interpretations for them [i.e., these repetitions], and all of them are found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁴⁸Torath Kohanim, Negaim, Chapters 13-16.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, when it is quite clear that this is not the kind of stain familiar to science and responsive to removing by chemical detergents. Discolouration of a garment in colours other than the ones that are work related due to the vocation of the wearer, are usually caused deliberately by the owner. What occurred here is due to some sin the owner was guilty of.
At any rate, our tradition has taught that the only discolouration of garments or cloths that are considered from a halachic point of view are garments which themselves are white and not coloured. Any coloured garment is not subject to this legislation at all, is not within the parameter of what is called נגע צרעת. The phenomenon of white garments or exterior walls of houses which are normally whitewashed breaking out in different colours is by itself a warning to the owner to examine his lifestyle and what he might have done wrong to rate such a warning.
Our sages in Kidushin 20 tell about how seriously a violation of a rule which is only peripheral to the Sh’mittah legislation is viewed. [the basic rules of sh’mittah relate to working the soil during that year. What I described here as “peripheral,” i.e. in Talmudic parlance as אבקה של שמטה, is the dealing in produce grown in violation of the sh’mittah laws. Ed.] The Talmud explains that violating the “peripheral” aspects of that legislation my result in the guilty party becoming impoverished. The process is gradual so that the guilty party had ample opportunity to ask himself why G’d had singled him out for this kind of punishment.
The same is true of the נגע צרעת legislation. Proof of the fact that this affliction is due to a well meaning Creator, One Who is concerned with the welfare of His Jewish subjects, is the fact that if the symptoms we know as נגע צרעת surface on the garments of gentile or houses of gentiles, these are not declared as ritually impure. Seeing that the gentiles as a rule do not have life in the hereafter to look forward to, G’d is not at such pains to warn them not to risk losing something they doe not to look forward to in any event. When a Jew is in danger of losing his claim to eternal life this is a far more serious matter, and G’d goes out of His way to afford the person potentially endangering his claim to eternal life an opportunity to repent and change his lifestyle before it is too late. In referring to this concept, Solomon in Proverbs 10,25 describes the צדיק, the Just, as the foundation of the universe. The whole idea of man having been created in G’d’s image, and G’d’s desire for man to become as much like Him as it is possible for a creature to become, lies at the source of this concern by G’d not to let man waste his opportunity to live up to his destiny.
Once man becomes aware of G’d’s concern for him he will have little difficulty in making his own will correspond to the revealed will of His Maker. He will begin to realise that by “listening” to the urgings of his body-dominated desires he risks losing his eternal life and the death of his body would also signal the death of his life force נפש, just as that of all the animals. >br> Even though we see many people defy G’d in their lifestyles, we can be sure in the words of G’d in Exodus 23,7 כי לא אצדיק רשע, “that I will not allow the wicked to appear as if he were a just person for ever.” [the author, in continuing this sermon, describes all the gentiles and most of the Jews of his time, as so oblivious to all this that they may be compared as existing in a permanent state of spiritual coma. Ed.] Nonetheless, if G’d chose the Jewish people as His special people it is because He entertains the fond hope that out of this nation there will emerge a nucleus of people who are aware of their destiny. When the Jewish people are predominantly in the state of spiritual coma the author just described, the symptoms described in our portion will not appear as it would be a waste of time to hope that the people thus afflicted would see in these symptoms a message from their G’d.

והבגד כי יהיה בו נגע צרעת, And the garment which is afflicted by the plague of "leprosy," etc. The conjunctive letter ו at the beginning of this paragraph is explained in Torat Kohanim by Rabbi Yossi Haglili by reading together the last three words of the previous verse with this verse, i.e. מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד, "his dwelling is outside the camp together with the garment." This teaches that the garments also need to be removed outside the three camps. Torat Kohanim added that the wording reflects that the rule applies not only to garments made out of wool or linen each but even to garments made of a mixture of those materials but not to garments made of cotton, silk, and other fabrics. This seems difficult as it is possible that what we have perceived to be a conjunctive letter ו is only intended to draw attention to the proximity of the legislation to remove garments made of linen or wool outside the three camps or to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool. Perhaps Rabbi Yossi Haglili's inference is based on the letter ו whereas the inference regarding inclusion of garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is based on the letter ה in the word והבגד.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, On a woolen or linen garment.” Our sages (Nega-im 11,2) explained that only the wool of animals which are pure can confer the impurity of a person afflicted with tzoraat on others. The wool of an unclean animal such as the camel cannot confer such impurity. If the garment in question is made up of a number of fabrics including wool from a pure animal as well as wool from a ritually impure animal, if the dominant portion of the garment was made from wool of a pure animal it does transfer such impurity; if not, it does not.

מחוץ למחנה מושבו, והבגד, “his residence must be outside the camp. “And the garment;” [in spite of verse 46 being the conclusion of a paragraph Ed.], Rabbi Yossi from the Galil, claims that we learn from these two verses that the afflicted person’s clothes also require to be quarantined with him. [Possibly he disregarded the end of the paragraph, as the new paragraph commences with the conjunctive letter ו alerting us to the fact that this verse belongs together with the one preceding it. Ed.]

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים in a garment made of wool or in a garment made of linen. We have to analyse why the Torah wrote the word או instead of simply writing בבגד צמר ובבגד פשתים. This is particularly difficult when we consider the words of the author of Korban Aharon who argues that the reason a mixture of wool and linen had to be included in this legislation was because the Torah used the word או which amounted to dividing the word "wool" from the word "linen." The problem becomes even more complex when we consider that Torat Kohanim writes that we might have assumed that these garments contract impurity regardless of whether the fabrics which these garments have been made of have been dyed or not. The words בבגד צמר are to teach us therefore that just as linen garments are usually made of undyed fabric so the legislation is applicable to woollen garments only when these fabrics have not been dyed. This comment is also problematical; on the contrary, it is directly opposed to the statement that the word או is divisive and one could therefore not derive any rule applying to linen garments as also applying to woollen garments.

בבגד צמר או בבגד פשתים, “whether it be a woolen or a linen garment;” when the Torah speaks of garments, we always hear of woolen garments before linen garments are mentioned. The reason is that once a woolen garment has been completed, it is worth more than a linen garment. When the Torah speaks of a warp or a woof (in weaving) it always mentions linen before wool. The reason is that a woven linen garment is more valuable than a woven garment made of wool.

We believe that the reason our verse had to write the word או was so that we should not think that unless the garment was made of a mixture of wool and linen it would not contract impurity. If so, the word או is needed in its own right and cannot be used exegetically anymore. Once this is so it does not represent a contradiction to what is implied by the words צמר and פשתים appearing next to each other. We have to understand our verse thus: בבגד צמר means that not only if the garment is made of wool, but the same legislation applies if it is made of linen; both materials are treated equally in הלכה. This is why Torat Kohanim wrote that just as linen garments are made of undyed fabric so the woollen garments the Torah has in mind here are the ones whose wool retains its original colour. The reason that the Torah had to include garments made of a mixture of linen and wool is not because we would make the mistake by misreading the meaning of the word או as Korban Aharon would have us believe, but that seeing the Torah mentioned only these two fabrics how would I have arrived at a valid assumption about a mixture of wool and linen? If, on the other hand, we were to accept the argument of Korban Aharon that the word או is divisive, thoroughly separating the words צמר and פשתים from each other, then how could one argue that just as linen garments are of undyed material so the woollen garments the Torah describes are also only those whose fabrics have not been dyed? We would therefore need the letter ו before the word הבגד to re-establish some linkage between these two kinds of garments.

לפשתים ולצמר‎ means OF FLAX OR OF WOOL.

Or of wool. The ל is like the ל of (Bereishis 32:18): “למי אתה” which means: To whom do you belong?

.או בשתי, “or in the warp;” the word שתי is not a genitive, construct mode, but a word in its own right, meaning “foundation”. Compare Psalms 11,3: השתות, “the foundations;” the reason is that the warp is the basis of all manner of weaving.

או בעור WHETHER IN A SKIN — this is a skin which has not been manufactured (of which no article has been made).

או בערב, “or in the woof;” the word is so called as it mixes the threads that have to be woven together.

או במלאכת עור OR IN ANYTHING MADE OF SKIN — this is a skin which has been manufactured.

ירקרק denotes green amongst the greens (the deepest green).

או בכל כלי עור, “or in a leather utensil;” our sages explain that this excludes coloured vessels. utensils or garments. The main practical significance of this statement is that wool or linen confer the wearer’s impurity only when they are in the original white colour. The rules applying to dyed wool garments also apply to dyed leather utensils.

אדמדם — the deepest red (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 2).

ודאה הכהן…והסגיד and the priest will observe and quarantine it, etc. We need to understand why the Torah changed its legal approach when speaking of the afflicted garment as compared to the legal approach used in connection with afflictions of the skin. The reason may be that an affliction of the skin may exist without quarantine, i.e. the priest will declare the afflicted person impure without a waiting period upon his first inspection (13,3). In the case of a parallel affliction appearing on the clothing of the afflicted person, the priest will first decree quarantine of seven days even though the symptoms are quite clear that we are dealing with צרעת, a form of "leprosy." The Torah therefore wished to distinguish between a person himself and his clothing. On the other hand, once the garment has been declared as definitely "leprous" it has to be utterly destroyed; unlike a person who may be cured of his "leprosy" if certain symptoms disappear, this is not true of his garments. If the Torah had legislated that the garments have to be declared as irrevocably impure at the first inspection by the priest, the impression would have been created that the wearer of those clothes cannot rehabilitate himself by means of repentance. We know from other parts of our commentaries that G'd does not desire the loss or destruction of man's money. Torat Kohanim as well as Nega-im 15,5 explained Leviticus 14,36: "and the priest shall command that they empty the house before the priest will go in to see the plague" that the declaration that the afflicted house is to be demolished is delayed until as much as possible of the owner's possessions have been "saved" by having first been removed from it. G'd therefore is on record that He is mindful of the possessions of even the lowest of the sinners. This then is the reason that the garments of the afflicted person are not declared as irrevocably impure during the first inspection by the priest. Seeing that man is given the opportunity to repent even after he has been ostracised and declared impure, no harm is done if he is declared impure, suffering from "leprosy" even at the first inspection by the priest.

צרעת ממארת A FRETTING LEPROSY — The word ממארת has the same meaning as. (Ezekiel 28:24) “a pricking (ממאיר) brier”; point (poignant) in old French The Midrashic explanation is: Attach a curse (מארה) to it, — that you will make no use of it (and therefore it must be burnt) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 14 11).

Prickly. Rashi explains: “As in the expression, ‘a prickly brier,’ which means a painful thorn. It is a verse in Yechezkel (28:24). Radak explains: A painful thorn, and the same appears in his Shoroshim.

בצמר ובפשתים means OF WOOL OR OF FLAX. This is the plain meaning. And the Midrashic explanation is: One might think that he must bring fleeces of wool or stalks of flax and burn them together with it, (the garment, in order to make a flame in which to burn it; then the verse will mean: he shall burn the garment with wool etc.) Scripture, however, states, in this verse, היא באש תשרף “it (the garment) shall be burnt in fire” — no other thing being required with it. If this be so why does it state בצמר או בפשתים? To exclude from being burnt the אומריות, the hems, that are on it if these are made of a different material than wool or flax respectively. The word אומריות means a hem; it is the same as the better-known word אימרא. (The translation is therefore: he shall burn [apply fire to] the garment etc., on the woolen parts only) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 1).

FOR IT IS A LEPROSY THAT IS ‘MAM’ERETH’ (FRETTING). “Mam’ereth is an expression of ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier).¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 28:24. The Midrashic interpretation is:¹⁵⁰Torath Kohanim, Negaim 14:11. attach a me’eirah (curse) to it — so that you will have no benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated: “a leprosy that is mechasra (pricking).” This interpretation he also derived from ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier),¹⁴⁹Ezekiel 28:24. for in Aramaic any shrub which causes a pricking pain is called chisra. Thus: “k’chizra (as a thorn) in a ball of wool;”¹⁵¹Berachoth 8a. “take thy good-natured advice and throw it over achizri (the hedge).”¹⁵²Baba Kama 83a. And the truth of the matter is that mam’ereth is indeed an expression of curse, that it is to say, it is G-d’s curse upon the garment and house, as I have mentioned.¹⁵³Above, Verse 47. But the Midrash which states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it [a leprous garment] is based [not on the word mam’ereth as Rashi had it, but] on the redundancy of expression.¹⁵⁴The expression tzara’ath mam’ereth appears in Verses 51 and 52 in the same connection. Since one is redundant, it serves as the basis for the Midrashic interpretation mentioned. The same law applies to a leprous house, and it is derived from the verse, And he shall break down the house.¹⁵⁵Further, 14:45.
Thus also I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi of Tractate Orlah:¹⁵⁶Yerushalmi, Orlah III, 3. “If stones were removed from a house affected with leprosy and made into plaster, some Rabbis taught that they become free of their impurity, and some taught that they do not become free of their impurity. Those who said that they become free, are also of the opinion that they may now be used [for some benefit], and those who say that they do not become free are also of the opinion that they are still forbidden [to be made use of], for it is written: it is a leprosy that is ‘mam’ereth’, meaning, attach a curse to it and derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abohu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All things which must be burnt, one may derive benefit from their ashes, except for the ashes of an idol. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yosei asked Rabbi Yochanan: ‘There is the case of the ashes of a house [affected with leprosy], which is not related to idolatry, and yet you say that the ashes thereof are forbidden for any use [like the stones which have been turned into lime or plaster]! Said Rabbi Yochanan to him: ‘This is different,’ since [concerning a house affected with leprosy] it is written that it be ‘broken down.’”¹⁵⁷And since in the case of the idols it is also written, and ye shall ‘break down’ their altars (Deuteronomy 12:3), we derive from a similarity of phrases the law that just as it is forbidden to have any benefit from idols, so we are under the same stricture of making any use from the stones of a house which had been affected with leprosy (P’nei Moshe, ibid.).
Metzora

צרעת ממארת, similar to Ezekiel 28,24 סילון ממאיר וקרץ מכאיב, “prickling briers and lacerating painful thorns.” We also have a similar phenomenon described in Deuteronomy 28,20 המארה והמהומה, “curse and confusion.”

צרעת ממארת היא, ”it is a malignant tzorat.” The symptom is of a malignant nature that will eventually envelop the entire garment. This is why the whole garment has to be burned forthwith.

“The fabric under discussion or the garment made from this fabric which has been contaminated has to be burned.” According to Nachmanides the repeated use of the words בגד, שתי, ערב, עור are all reminders of the miraculous connection between the afflicted person’s sins and the state of health of his garments or basic utensils. G’d, as it were, reminds him gently to mend his ways so that He would not have to take stronger action. [Needless to add that the premise is that as a rule Israeli society observed all of G’d’s commandments and only a very few individuals experienced such afflictions to their clothing. In a corrupt society these afflictions would become so commonplace as to lose their educational value. Ed.]

Of wool. Not that the ב is instead of של (of), but rather instead of a מ (from), as in (8:32): “והנותר בבשר ובלחם (and the left over from the flesh and bread).”

צרעת ממארת היא, “it is a malignant skin disease;” the afflicted person, when he feels burning of the skin will feel tempted to peel off the affected part of the skin, and as a result it would come back on an even bigger area of his skin.

To exclude. And the ב is in its plain meaning, connected with the phrase, “he shall burn.”

את אשר בו הנגע THAT WHEREIN THE PLAGUE IS — One might think that he has to wash only that spot in which is the plague and not the garment itself! It. however, states: Not, “he shall wash the plague, but “that where in the plague is”. If this be so, then one might think that the entire garment requires washing! It, however, states, (v. 55) הנגע “the plague” (after the plague has been washed), and not the garment. How shall it be done? He washes some of the garment with it (the plague) (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 5).

The place of the eruption alone. Meaning: [You might think] only the place of the eruption is required to be washed but not the garment in which there is the eruption. [Therefore] the verse says: “the article having the eruption...”

The verse says: “the eruption.” Meaning: Later in this section it is written regarding the washing of an eruption (v. 56): “And behold! The eruption grew faint after it was washed,” which refers to the eruption. Meaning: We cannot say the place of the eruption alone, since it says, “the article having the eruption,” and we cannot say the entire garment, because it should say “they shall wash [it]” [and not mention the eruption]. Would we not know that the eruption is in the garment? (Gur Aryeh).

הֻכַּבֵּס‎ ‎ ‎‎‎‏ אחרי AFTER IT IS WASHED — The verbal form is an expression of something done (a passive infinitive).

פחתת, the word describes a kind of inflammation which eats away at the affected area.

פחתת הוא, “it is an ingrained affliction.” The word is derived from פוחת, something which gradually diminishes, becomes progressively worth less, until eventually it has ceased to have value; in this case the meaning it that the damage will spread until it encompasses the entire fabric.

It did not fade. You should infer: Thus, if it did fade it is pure. [Its explanation is] not that it did not increase [from its appearance], and you would infer that if it increased it is pure or confined, for that is more severe than if it did not change its hue, which is impure (Re’m).

פחתת היא, “it has penetrated the fabric of his garment thoroughly.” As a result it will keep on spreading. Merely tearing up the garment is not sufficient.

בקרחתו או בגבחו, “whether the bareness be within or without.” These words refer to either the garment or the hide. It is similar to when people who come from a hairy region “baldy,” whereas they do the reverse with people coming from a region of smooth skinned people, “hairy.”

לא הפך הנגע את עינו THE PLAGUE HATH NOT CHANGED ITS COLOR — i. e. it has not become paler than its former colour.

בקרחתו או בגבחתו, “in his new or worn garment.” Some commentators understand this to mean that it makes no difference whether the garment is worn on hairy or smooth skin. [so that the word בקרחתו refers to קרחת baldness. Ed.]

All the more so if it did not turn [color] but spread. For spreading is more severe than not spreading, which is impure.

והנגע לא פשה AND THE PLAGUE HATH NOT SPREAD — We understand from this that if it has not changed its color and has not spread it is unclean, (although the fact that it has not spread might lead us to suppose that it is clean;here, however, the color has not changed, and so it is unclean). It is, of course, not necessary to state that it is unclean if the colour has not changed but the plague has spread (for the spreading is an additional reason for declaring it unclean). If, however, it has changed its colour, but it has not spread, I would not know what one should do with it. Therefore it states, (v. 50) “And he shall shut up the plague” for a period and examine it again — shut it up whatever the circumstances of doubt may be. This is the opinion of Rabbi Jehuda. But other Sages say that in this case it is undoubtedly unclean as is stated in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 7): and I make mention of this here (instead of doing so on v. 50), in order to explain that verse in its connection with this text.

What should be done with it. This is because it is not mentioned in any place if [the case where] it turned is more severe than [the case where] it did not turn, or not.

פחתת היא — This is an expression denoting a pit (anything cut out) as in, (II Samuel 17:9) “in one of the pits (פחתים)”. It is as much as to say, it is low-lying — a plague the colour of which is sunk deep (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 8).

בגבחתו ‎‎‎ או‎ בקרחתו — Understand this as the Targum does: in its old state (lit., rubbed condition) or in its new state.

קרחתו is therefore שחקים (clothes rubbed by wear), old (and consequently ,שחיקותיה is a proper contrast to חדתותיה in the Targum). These words, קרחת and גבחת, although not properly applicable to garments are used here to afford an opportunity for an Halachic derivation, for which there is required an argument deduced from the similarity of phrases: Whence do we know in regard to a plague spreading over the entire surface in the case of garments that it is c1ean? Because the, terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of a human being and the terms קרחת and גבחת are used in the case of garments. How is it in the former case? If it has spread over all his body, he is clean (v.13)! So here, also, if it has spread over all the garment it is clean (Niddah 19a). For this reason Scripture here purposely avails itself of the expressions קרחת and גבחת, to make the גז"ש possible. And in regard to its interpretation and its translation in the Targum the following is what it implies: קרחת is an expression denoting “old”, and גבחת is an expression denoting “new” (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 15 9); and the meaning is just the same as though it were written באחריתו או בקדמותו. at its end or at its beginning, — for קרחת has the meaning of the back- parts (i. e. the end), since גבחת has the meaning of face (front-side, i. e. beginning), as it is written, (v. 41) “And if from the corner towards his face [the hair of his head be fallen] … he is a גבח” — so that קרחת must be all that part which slopes downwards on the skull towards the back. Thus is it explained in Torath Cohanim (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 10 7).

וקרע אתו THEN SHALL HE REND IT OUT — i. e. he shall tear out the plague-spot from the garment and burn it (just as he is commanded in the case mentioned in the next verse) (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 2).

And burn it. Not that he should tear it alone, but rather he should also burn it. Even though burning was not mentioned [here,] it was already mentioned above (v. 55), and here it returns to explain the manner of burning — how it should be. Meaning: We cannot say the garment is just torn, for it is written, “from the garment.” (Gur Aryeh).

פרחת היא IT IS A SPREADING PLAGUE — it is a thing which breaks out again and again.

באש תשרפנו THOU SHALT BURN IT IN FIRE — “it” — the entire garment (in contradistinction to v. 56).

וסר מהם הנגע IF THE PLAGUE BE DEPARTED FROM THEM — if when they washed it at first by the order of the priest (Leviticus 13:54), the plague departed from it entirely (cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 16 10),

וכבס שנית, “it shall be immersed in a ritual bath a second time.” The second time in order to purify it, whereas the first time was in order to remove the residue of the plague.

וכבס שנית IT SHALL BE WASHED A SECOND TIME — here this expression denotes immersion in a ritual bath (not washing of the garment). The words used in the translation of the Targum for the expressions derived from the root כבס occurring in this section denote making white (cleaning, — e. g. ויתחור), “and it shall be made white” — except for this (וְכֻבַּס) which is not intended to mean making white but to mean immersion. For this reason it is translated in the Targum by ויצטבע — “it shall be dipped”. Similarly wherever it speaks of כבוס בגדים which intend “immersion” the Targum translation is ויצטבע, (this is the Targum of וְכֻבַּס‎ here and in Leviticus 15:17; the active וְכִבֶּס, is, of course, translated by ויצבע).

לטהרו או לטמאו, “to declare him purified or contaminated.”

That is that He commanded us that a metsora be impure. And this commandment includes all of the laws of tsaraat of a person: That which is pure from it, that which requires quarantine, and that which needs shaving - that is shaving of the scab - along with quarantine, and that which does not need it; and its other laws and the nature of its impurity. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 1-7.)

That is that He commanded us to administer the laws of the impurity of a garment that has tsaraat, such that it be impure. And this commandment includes all the types of impurity of tsaraat of a garment - how they are impure and how they generate impurity, which ones need quarantine or tearing or burning or washing and purification - and the other things that appear in Scripture or through the tradition about it. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 12.)

That is that He commanded us that a metsora (a person with tsaarat) be known to all, such that people will separate from him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "As the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent [... and he shall call out, 'Impure; impure!]'" (Leviticus 13:45). And the proof about its being a positive commandment is their saying in the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:5-6) "Because it is stated (of the high priest, Leviticus 21:10), 'his hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend, etc.,' I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted. And how will I fulfill, 'his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long?' With all other people besides the high priest. [Hence] we learn to say, 'with a leprous affection' - even if he be the high priest - his clothes shall be torn; 'and his hair shall grow long' - he shall grow out his hair." And it is clear that a high priest is [prohibited] with a negative commandment from renting [his clothes] and growing [his hair] long. And the principle with us is that any place you find a positive commandment and a negative commandment - if you can fulfill both of them, that is best; but if not, the positive commandment pushes off the negative commandment. And since we have found that their language instructs that when the high priest has tsaarat, he grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], it indicates that it is a positive commandment. And the tradition has already come [to teach] that people with other impurities are also obligated to make a sign about themselves, such that other people will distance themselves from them. And the language of the Sifra (Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Chapter 12:9) is, "From where [do we know that the same holds for] someone impure from a corpse or one who had sexual intercourse with a menstruant woman? [Hence] we learn to say, 'and he shall call out, "Impure; impure!"'" And the explanation is that anyone impure must announce his impurity and place a sign upon himself, through which it will be known that he is impure, and one touches him is impure - hence they will distance themselves. And behold it has been explained that women are not obligated in [providing for] the recognition of a metzora. And that is their saying (Sotah 23a), "A man grows [his hair] out and rents [his clothes], but a woman does not grow [her hair] out and rent [her clothes]." But she does cover the lip and makes known that she is impure, like other impure people. (See Parashat Tazria; Mishneh Torah, Defilement by Leprosy 6.)