Midrash su Levitico 13:78

(Bamidbar 5:2) "that they send out of the camp": I understand this to mean from the Levite camp alone. Whence do I derive that the Israelite camp is also meant? From (Bamidbar 5:3) "Outside the camp shall you send them." (Bamidbar 5:3) "and they shall not make unclean their camps in whose midst I dwell": This is the camp of the Shechinah. — But even if this were not mentioned, I could derive it a fortiori, viz. If those with dead-body tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, that of the Israelites, how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, that of the Shechinah. If so, why is "and they shall not make unclean their camps" needed? To teach that we do not punish by an a fortiori argument. R. Yehudah says: There is no need (for the verse to teach that they are sent out of the camp of the Shechinah), for it follows a fortiori, viz.: If those with (dead-body) tumah are ejected from the less stringent camp, (that of) the ark (i.e., the camp of the Levites), how much more so are they ejected from the more stringent camp, (that of) the Shechinah, (R. Yehudah obviously holding that we do punish by an a fortiori argument). If so, why is it written "and they shall not make unclean their camps?" Because from "they shall send out from the camp every leper and every zav and every tamei meth," I would understand that they are all sent to one place; it is, therefore, written in respect to a leper (Vayikra 13:46) "Solitary shall he sit" — that no other unclean ones sit with him. I might then think that zavim and the tamei meth are sent to one camp; it is, therefore, written "and they shall not make unclean their camps" — to assign a separate camp for each. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says: There is no need (for the above). A leper was included in the general category (of the unclean), and left the category (for special mention) to teach concerning the category, viz.: Just as a leper, whose tumah is most stringent — his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor, so, each one whose tumah is more stringent, his sending is more stringent than that of his neighbor.

Hezekiah said: "A man's prayer is not heard unless he considers himself as soft-hearted as flesh, [but not hard like a rock]; for it is said (Is. 66, 23) And it shall come to pass that from one new moon to the other new moon, and that from one Sabbath to the other Sabbath, should all flesh come to prositorious act in this world, it proceeds him in trate themselves before Me, Saith the Lord." R. Zera said: "Concerning flesh it is written (Lev. 13, 18) It is healed but concerning man the word 'healed' is not written." R. Jochanan said: "The word Adam means Aphar (dust), daam blood, and mass gall; Bossor (flesh) means busha (disgrace), scrucha (smell) and Zima (worms). According to others it means: Busha (disgrace) (grace), and Rima (worms), for it for it is written with a Shin. R. Ashi said: "Everyman who possesses haughtiness will wane in reputation, as it is said (Ib. 14, 56) And for a swelling for a rising and the word S'eth (rising) refers to haughtiness, as it is said (Is. 2, 14) And over all the high mountains (nissa'ah) and over all the exalted hills and sapachas (swelling) refers to nothing else but an ill-considered thing, as it is said (I Sam. 2, 36) And he will say, 'Attach me, (Safcheni) I pray thee, unto one of the priestly officers that I may eat all bread.'" R. Joshua b. Levi said: "Come and see how greatly are the humble-spirited considered before the Holy One, praised be He, for at the time the Temple was in existence if a man brought a burnt-offering sacrifice, he received the reward of a burnt-offering, and if one brought a meal-offering he received the reward of a meal-offering, but a man who who possesses a humble spirit is considered by Scripture as if he had brought all kinds of sacrifices, as it is said (Ps. 51, 19) The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit. And not only this but even his prayer is not rejected, as it is said further A broken and contrite heart, O God wilt Thou not despise."

1) "And He called to Moses and the L–rd spoke to him, etc." "to him" — to exclude Aaron. R. Yehudah b. Betheira said: Thirteen dibroth (accompanied by a command) were stated in the Torah to Moses and Aaron, and, corresponding to them, thirteen limitations, to teach us that they were not spoken to Aaron, but to Moses, to tell them to Aaron. (The dibroth: 1) [Shemoth 6:13]; 2) [Shemoth 7:8]; 3) [Shemoth 9:8]; 4) [Shemoth 12:1]; 5) [Shemoth 12:43]; 6) [Vayikra 11:1]; 7) [Vayikra 13:1]; 8) [Vayikra 14:33]; 9 [Vayikra 15:1]; 10 [Bamidbar 2:1]; 11 [Bamidbar 4:1]; 12 [Bamidbar 4:18]; 13) [Bamidbar 19:2].)

1) (Vayikra 13:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: (Vayikra 13:2) A man, if there shall be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it become in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "if there shall be in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this ("shall be" rather than "is")? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:38) "And a man or a woman, if there be in the skin of their flesh white beharoth … he is clean," this tells me only of beharoth which did not arrive at the status of maroth ("appearances" [of plague-spots]) viz.: plague-spots (negaim) which appeared in a non-Jew before he became a proselyte (even though it remained the same after his conversion; (a plague-spot) in a fetus before it was born (which could not be inspected by the Cohein in utero, and which remained the same after birth); in a crease (in the flesh) which was (later) revealed (when the flesh became taut); in the head and the beard (which appeared when he became bald); in a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation — (All of these are clean even though they are now "maroth," because when they originated they were not susceptible of inspection by the Cohein. What is their status) if their appearance changes, either lessening or deepening in intensity? R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is clean, (for though it changed in appearance, it still originated from the first, non-inspectable plague-spot). R. Elazar b. Chasma says: If of lesser intensity, it is clean (being a "waning" of the original plague-spot); if of deeper intensity, it is to be inspected anew, (being considered a new plague-spot). R. Akiva says: Whether of lesser or deeper intensity it is to be inspected anew. (And) it is in this connection that it is written "A man, if there shall be" (connoting a change [i.e., deeper or lesser intensity] from a pre-existing condition).

1) (Vayikra 13:4) ("And if it is a white bahereth in the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.") This tells me only of a white bahereth. Whence do we derive for inclusion a (white) se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:10) "a white se'eth." Whence are other (white) appearances derived? From "And if a bahereth."

1) (Vayikra 13:9) ("A plague-spot of leprosy, if it be in a man, then he shall be brought to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:10) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, a white se'eth in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and the healthiness (michyah) of living flesh within the se'eth"): "a plague-spot of leprosy": What is the intent of this? From "and, behold, a white se'eth" we learn that a se'eth becomes tamei with a michyah. Whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? (From "a plague-spot of leprosy.") — But does this not follow (even without the verse)? viz.: If we find all of the other appearances to be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through white hair, let them be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through michyah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If all of the appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, which does not confer tumah in karachath (back of the head) and gabachath (front of the head, viz. Vayikra 13:42-43), how much more so should they be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does confer tumah in karachath and gabachath! — No, if all of the other appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, it is because white hair confers tumah in shechin (boils) and michvah (burns). Should they then be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does not confer tumah in shechin and michvah! It must, therefore, be written "a plague-spot of leprosy" (to tell us that they do become tamei through michyah. And just as a se'eth is an um (a generator of leprosy), so is a bahereth an um. And whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? From the same a fortiori argument (as above) and from the same answer, viz. (It is derived) from "a plague-spot of leprosy."

1) (Vayikra 13:14) ("And on the day that there appears in it living flesh he shall be unclean.") We are hereby taught about limb tips that are revealed (in the midst of the blossoming, the nega having departed from them) that they are tamei, (their having become like living flesh in a bahereth). I might think (that this obtains with) any amount (of revelation); it is, therefore, written here "living flesh," and above (Vayikra 13:10, in respect to michyah) "living flesh." Just as "healthy flesh" mentioned there must be (at least the size of a lentil), here, too, it must be a lentil. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Meir says: Is he rendered tamei by reason of michyah? Did (we not learn [viz. Chapter 2:9]) that michyah does not confer tumah through limb tips? Rather, this is "a decree of the King," and tumah is (conferred through) any amount. R. Yossi countered: Is he rendered tamei by reason of limb tips? Is he not tamei even if (the living flesh) returns to its middle? It is written here "living flesh," and there, "living flesh." Just as "living flesh" there is lentil-size, so "living flesh" here is lentil-size.

1) (Vayikra 13:42) ("And if there be on the karachath or on the gabachath a reddish-white plague-spot, it is blossoming leprosy on his karachath or on his gabachath.") "a reddish-white plague-spot": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. "leprosy": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah through (the eruption of) a michyah (viz. Section 4, Chapter 7:9), (michyah also being called "leprosy" [viz. Vayikra 13:11]). For (had "leprosy" not been written in this connection,) it would follow a fortiori (that it does not confer tumah through a michyah), viz.: If boil or burn, which do confer tumah through white hair, do not confer tumah through michyah, then karachath or gabachath, which do not confer tumah through white hair, how much more so should they not confer tumah through michyah! It is, therefore, written "leprosy," teaching us that it does confer tumah through michyah.

1) (Vayikra 13:11) ("It is old leprosy in the skin of his flesh. And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him, for he is tamei.") "leprosy": This is a prototype (binyan av) for all leprosy as requiring a garis (the size of a Cilician bean, for tumah). "old": We are hereby taught that the michyah confers tumah if it preceded ([hence "old"] the se'eth). For (without the verse) would it not follow (that it should not do so, viz.): White hair is a sign of tumah, and a michyah is a sign of tumah. Just as white hair confers tumah only if it did not precede the se'eth, so michyah should confer tumah only if it did not precede the se'eth. It is, therefore, written "old," to teach us that it confers tumah if it preceded the se'eth.

1) "And if the leprosy blossom": What is the intent of this? (i.e., Why not merely state "if it blossomed"?) I might think that the blossoming is tahor only from a se'eth (the appearance under discussion). Whence do I derive the same for the other appearances? From "the leprosy." "and the leprosy cover": not the bohak (white scurf). For I would say that since it is a sign of cleanliness at the end (see Chapter 6:2), it is also a sign of cleanliness in the beginning; it is, therefore, written "and the leprosy cover," and not the bohak.

1) (Vayikra 13:14) ("And on the day that there appears in it living flesh he shall be unclean.") We are hereby taught about limb tips that are revealed (in the midst of the blossoming, the nega having departed from them) that they are tamei, (their having become like living flesh in a bahereth). I might think (that this obtains with) any amount (of revelation); it is, therefore, written here "living flesh," and above (Vayikra 13:10, in respect to michyah) "living flesh." Just as "healthy flesh" mentioned there must be (at least the size of a lentil), here, too, it must be a lentil. These are the words of R. Yossi. R. Meir says: Is he rendered tamei by reason of michyah? Did (we not learn [viz. Chapter 2:9]) that michyah does not confer tumah through limb tips? Rather, this is "a decree of the King," and tumah is (conferred through) any amount. R. Yossi countered: Is he rendered tamei by reason of limb tips? Is he not tamei even if (the living flesh) returns to its middle? It is written here "living flesh," and there, "living flesh." Just as "living flesh" there is lentil-size, so "living flesh" here is lentil-size.

1) (Vayikra 13:16) ("If the healthy flesh recede and it return to white, then he shall come to the Cohein.") "If the healthy flesh recede and it return to white": This comes to teach us that if limb tips were revealed and were then again covered (by white), he is tahor. When is it derived that this is so even with a hundred repetitions of the same? From "Or if it return" rather than (simply) "If it return."

1) (Vayikra 13:18) "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil" — (Vayikra 13:24) "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire": This (i.e., the fact that boil and burn are discussed independently and not jointly) teaches us that boil and burn do not combine with each other.

1) (Vayikra 13:19) ("and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth or a reddish-white bahereth, then it shall be shown to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:20) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It is a plague-spot of leprosy; it has blossomed in the boil. (Vayikra 13:21) And if the Cohein see it, and, behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is dim, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for seven days.") "and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth": The boil must precede the se'eth, and not the se'eth, the boil. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: It was called "its place" (that of the bahereth) before it (the boil) arrived there.

1) (Vayikra 13:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: (Vayikra 13:2) A man, if there shall be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it become in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "if there shall be in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this ("shall be" rather than "is")? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:38) "And a man or a woman, if there be in the skin of their flesh white beharoth … he is clean," this tells me only of beharoth which did not arrive at the status of maroth ("appearances" [of plague-spots]) viz.: plague-spots (negaim) which appeared in a non-Jew before he became a proselyte (even though it remained the same after his conversion; (a plague-spot) in a fetus before it was born (which could not be inspected by the Cohein in utero, and which remained the same after birth); in a crease (in the flesh) which was (later) revealed (when the flesh became taut); in the head and the beard (which appeared when he became bald); in a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation — (All of these are clean even though they are now "maroth," because when they originated they were not susceptible of inspection by the Cohein. What is their status) if their appearance changes, either lessening or deepening in intensity? R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is clean, (for though it changed in appearance, it still originated from the first, non-inspectable plague-spot). R. Elazar b. Chasma says: If of lesser intensity, it is clean (being a "waning" of the original plague-spot); if of deeper intensity, it is to be inspected anew, (being considered a new plague-spot). R. Akiva says: Whether of lesser or deeper intensity it is to be inspected anew. (And) it is in this connection that it is written "A man, if there shall be" (connoting a change [i.e., deeper or lesser intensity] from a pre-existing condition).

1) (Vayikra 13:19) ("and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth or a reddish-white bahereth, then it shall be shown to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:20) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It is a plague-spot of leprosy; it has blossomed in the boil. (Vayikra 13:21) And if the Cohein see it, and, behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is dim, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for seven days.") "and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth": The boil must precede the se'eth, and not the se'eth, the boil. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: It was called "its place" (that of the bahereth) before it (the boil) arrived there.

1) (Vayikra 13:19) ("and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth or a reddish-white bahereth, then it shall be shown to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:20) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, its appearance is lower than the skin, and its hair has turned white, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It is a plague-spot of leprosy; it has blossomed in the boil. (Vayikra 13:21) And if the Cohein see it, and, behold, there is no white hair in it, and it is not lower than the skin, and it is dim, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for seven days.") "and there be in the place of the boil a white se'eth": The boil must precede the se'eth, and not the se'eth, the boil. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: It was called "its place" (that of the bahereth) before it (the boil) arrived there.

1) (Vayikra 13:18) "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil" — (Vayikra 13:24) "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire": This (i.e., the fact that boil and burn are discussed independently and not jointly) teaches us that boil and burn do not combine with each other.

1) (Vayikra 13:29) ("And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard (Vayikra 13:30) then the Cohein shall see the plague-spot; and if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the Cohein shall declare him tamei. It is a nethek (a scall); it is leprosy of the head or the beard.") "And a man": to include a nethek within a nethek (as being tamei). "a man or a woman": This tells me only of a (distinct) man or woman. Whence do I derive for inclusion a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite? From "or." "if there be in it a plague-spot in the head or in the beard": This teaches us that the head and the beard do not combine with each other (vis-à-vis the minimum size for tumah).

1) (Vayikra 13:3) ("And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot in the skin of the flesh. If hair in the plague-spot has turned white, and the appearance of the plague-spot is deeper than the skin of his flesh, then it is a plague-spot of leprosy; and the Cohein shall see it and he shall declare him unclean.") "and the Cohein shall see the plague-spot": His eyes should be intently upon it when he inspects it. "in the skin of the flesh": intermediate (i.e., even if he is an Ethiopian, he is seen as "intermediate" [viz. Chapter 1:5]). "in the skin of the flesh": He should inspect all the flesh with it as one (to see if it has spread). R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: The nega must be outside the skin of the flesh, right next to it, so that it lends itself to spreading. For if it were right next to the head, the beard, or a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation (viz. Chapter 1:1), it would not be tamei.

1) (Vayikra 13:29) ("And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard (Vayikra 13:30) then the Cohein shall see the plague-spot; and if its appearance is deeper than the skin and there is in it thin yellow hair, then the Cohein shall declare him tamei. It is a nethek (a scall); it is leprosy of the head or the beard.") "And a man": to include a nethek within a nethek (as being tamei). "a man or a woman": This tells me only of a (distinct) man or woman. Whence do I derive for inclusion a tumtum (one whose sex is in doubt) or a hermaphrodite? From "or." "if there be in it a plague-spot in the head or in the beard": This teaches us that the head and the beard do not combine with each other (vis-à-vis the minimum size for tumah).

1) (Vayikra 13:31) ("And if the Cohein sees the nega of the nethek, and, behold, its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and there is no black hair in it, then the Cohein shall quarantine the nega of the nethek for seven days.") "And if the Cohein sees the nega of the nethek": R. Shimon says: What is the intent of this? Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as a nega confers tumah only if it precedes the white hair, so a nethek confers tumah only if it precedes the yellow hair.

1) (Vayikra 13:32) ("And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day, and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin") "on the seventh": I might think either by day or at night (before the seventh day); it is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night.

1) (Vayikra 13:1) ("And the L–rd spoke to Moses and to Aaron, saying: (Vayikra 13:2) A man, if there shall be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it become in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "if there shall be in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this ("shall be" rather than "is")? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:38) "And a man or a woman, if there be in the skin of their flesh white beharoth … he is clean," this tells me only of beharoth which did not arrive at the status of maroth ("appearances" [of plague-spots]) viz.: plague-spots (negaim) which appeared in a non-Jew before he became a proselyte (even though it remained the same after his conversion; (a plague-spot) in a fetus before it was born (which could not be inspected by the Cohein in utero, and which remained the same after birth); in a crease (in the flesh) which was (later) revealed (when the flesh became taut); in the head and the beard (which appeared when he became bald); in a "rebellious" boil or burn or inflammation — (All of these are clean even though they are now "maroth," because when they originated they were not susceptible of inspection by the Cohein. What is their status) if their appearance changes, either lessening or deepening in intensity? R. Elazar b. Azaryah says: It is clean, (for though it changed in appearance, it still originated from the first, non-inspectable plague-spot). R. Elazar b. Chasma says: If of lesser intensity, it is clean (being a "waning" of the original plague-spot); if of deeper intensity, it is to be inspected anew, (being considered a new plague-spot). R. Akiva says: Whether of lesser or deeper intensity it is to be inspected anew. (And) it is in this connection that it is written "A man, if there shall be" (connoting a change [i.e., deeper or lesser intensity] from a pre-existing condition).

1) (Vayikra 13:39) ("Then the Cohein shall see, and, behold, if in the skin of their flesh there are dim white bright spots, it is bohak (white scurf) that has blossomed in the skin; it is clean.") "it is bohak … it is clean": This teaches us that bohak is clean (and does not require quarantine). I might think that it does not confer tumah through its source, but it does confer tumah by spreading; it is, therefore, written "that has blossomed (i.e., spread) in the skin; it is clean." I might think that it renders clean a bahereth that issued from it; it is, therefore, written "it" (bohak, is clean, but not a bahereth that issues from it). I might think that it does not render clean a bahereth that issues from it, but it does render clean a bahereth that is adjacent to it; it is, therefore, written "it is clean" but a bahereth or a spreading that either issues from it or is adjacent to it is not clean.

1) (Vayikra 13:4) ("And if it is a white bahereth in the skin of his flesh, and its appearance is not deeper than the skin, and its hair has not turned white, then the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.") This tells me only of a white bahereth. Whence do we derive for inclusion a (white) se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:10) "a white se'eth." Whence are other (white) appearances derived? From "And if a bahereth."

1) (Vayikra 13:9) ("A plague-spot of leprosy, if it be in a man, then he shall be brought to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:10) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, a white se'eth in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and the healthiness (michyah) of living flesh within the se'eth"): "a plague-spot of leprosy": What is the intent of this? From "and, behold, a white se'eth" we learn that a se'eth becomes tamei with a michyah. Whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? (From "a plague-spot of leprosy.") — But does this not follow (even without the verse)? viz.: If we find all of the other appearances to be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through white hair, let them be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through michyah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If all of the appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, which does not confer tumah in karachath (back of the head) and gabachath (front of the head, viz. Vayikra 13:42-43), how much more so should they be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does confer tumah in karachath and gabachath! — No, if all of the other appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, it is because white hair confers tumah in shechin (boils) and michvah (burns). Should they then be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does not confer tumah in shechin and michvah! It must, therefore, be written "a plague-spot of leprosy" (to tell us that they do become tamei through michyah. And just as a se'eth is an um (a generator of leprosy), so is a bahereth an um. And whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? From the same a fortiori argument (as above) and from the same answer, viz. (It is derived) from "a plague-spot of leprosy."

1) (Vayikra 13:42) ("And if there be on the karachath or on the gabachath a reddish-white plague-spot, it is blossoming leprosy on his karachath or on his gabachath.") "a reddish-white plague-spot": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. "leprosy": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah through (the eruption of) a michyah (viz. Section 4, Chapter 7:9), (michyah also being called "leprosy" [viz. Vayikra 13:11]). For (had "leprosy" not been written in this connection,) it would follow a fortiori (that it does not confer tumah through a michyah), viz.: If boil or burn, which do confer tumah through white hair, do not confer tumah through michyah, then karachath or gabachath, which do not confer tumah through white hair, how much more so should they not confer tumah through michyah! It is, therefore, written "leprosy," teaching us that it does confer tumah through michyah.

1) (Vayikra 13:44) ("He is a leprous man; he is unclean. The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean; in his head is his plague.") "man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a woman and a minor for inclusion? From "leprous": both man, woman, and minor. If so, why is it written "man"? In respect to what is stated below (Vayikra 13:45). A man lets his hair grow long and rends his garments, and not a woman.

1) (Vayikra 13:44) ("He is a leprous man; he is unclean. The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean; in his head is his plague.") "man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a woman and a minor for inclusion? From "leprous": both man, woman, and minor. If so, why is it written "man"? In respect to what is stated below (Vayikra 13:45). A man lets his hair grow long and rends his garments, and not a woman.

1) (Vayikra 13:47) ("And the garment, if there be in it a plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax,") "And the garment": I might think (that this includes) remnants and cardings and coarse silk and cotton and camel wool and rabbit wool and goat down; it is, therefore, written "in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax.

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

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

1) (Vayikra 13:5) ("And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. And if the plague-spot appears as it did before, if it did not spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall quarantine him for a second seven days.") "on the seventh day": I might think either in the daytime or at night. It is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night.

1) (Vayikra 13:52) ("And he shall burn the garment, or the warp, or the woof, of wool or of flax, on any article of skin in which the plague-spot will be; for it is blight-leprosy — it shall be burned in fire.") "And he shall burn, etc.": I might think that he should bring shearings of wool and stalks of flax and burn them along with it; it is, therefore, written "it shall be burned in fire" — nothing else need be burned along with it.

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

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

1) (Vayikra 13:9) ("A plague-spot of leprosy, if it be in a man, then he shall be brought to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:10) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, a white se'eth in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and the healthiness (michyah) of living flesh within the se'eth"): "a plague-spot of leprosy": What is the intent of this? From "and, behold, a white se'eth" we learn that a se'eth becomes tamei with a michyah. Whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? (From "a plague-spot of leprosy.") — But does this not follow (even without the verse)? viz.: If we find all of the other appearances to be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through white hair, let them be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through michyah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If all of the appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, which does not confer tumah in karachath (back of the head) and gabachath (front of the head, viz. Vayikra 13:42-43), how much more so should they be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does confer tumah in karachath and gabachath! — No, if all of the other appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, it is because white hair confers tumah in shechin (boils) and michvah (burns). Should they then be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does not confer tumah in shechin and michvah! It must, therefore, be written "a plague-spot of leprosy" (to tell us that they do become tamei through michyah. And just as a se'eth is an um (a generator of leprosy), so is a bahereth an um. And whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? From the same a fortiori argument (as above) and from the same answer, viz. (It is derived) from "a plague-spot of leprosy."

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” This text is related (to Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” Everything depends on the tongue. [If] one is acquitted, he is acquitted for life; [if] one is not acquitted, he is condemned to death. [If] one is engaged in Torah with his tongue, he is acquitted for life, inasmuch as the Torah is a tree of life, as stated (in Prov. 3:18), “[Wisdom] is a tree of life to those who take hold of it.” It (i.e., the Torah) is also one's healing for the evil tongue (i.e., slander), as stated (in Prov. 15:4), “A healing tongue is a tree of life.” But if one is occupied with slander, his soul is condemned to death, since slander is more harmful than the shedding of blood. Thus whoever kills takes only one life, but the one who speaks slander kills three people: the one who tells it, the one who accepts it, and the one about whom it is told.⁹PRK 4:2; Lev. R. 26:2; Numb. R. 19:2; Deut. R. 5:10; M. Pss. 12:2; yPe’ah 1:1 (16a). Doeg spoke slander against Ahimelech; and he (i.e., Ahimelech) was killed, as stated (in I Sam. 22:16), “But the king said, ‘You shall surely die, Ahimelech.’” Saul also was killed, [as stated] (in I Chron. 10:13), “So Saul died for the treachery which he had committed against the Lord.” And thus did Saul say (in II Sam. 1:9, to a young man), “Please stand over me and slay me, for death throes have seized me.” [The young man was] the accuser¹⁰Gk.: kategoros. of Nob, the city of priests [against Saul]. Now death throes (shbts) can only denote priesthood, since it is stated (in Exod. 28:13 with reference to high-priestly dress), “And you shall make gold brocade (rt.: shbts).” Doeg also was uprooted (shrsh) from the life of this world and from all life in the world to come. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 52:7), “God will also tear you down for ever; He will seize you, tear you away from your tent, and uproot (shrsh) you from the land of the living. Selah,” [i.e., He will uproot you] from life in the world to come. Who is more severe? One who smites with the sword or [one who] smites with the dart? Say the one who smites with the dart. The one who smites with the sword is only able to kill his companion if he draws near to him and touches him; but in the case of one who smites with the dart, it is not so. Rather one throws the dart wherever he sees him. Therefore, one who speaks slander is comparable to the dart, as stated (in Jer. 9:7), “Their tongue is a sharpened dart; it speaks deceit.” It also says (in Ps. 57:5), “people, whose teeth are spears and darts, and whose tongue a sharp sword.” See how harmful slander is, in that it is more harmful than adultery, shedding blood and idolatry.¹¹M. Pss. 52:2. Of adultery it is written (in Gen. 39:9, where Joseph is addressing Potiphar's wife), “then how shall I do this great evil and sin against God?” Of shedding blood it is written (in Gen. 4:13), “My sin is greater than I can bear.” Of idolatry it is written (in Exod. 32:31, with reference to the golden calf), “Alas, this people has sinned a great sin.” But when it (i.e., Scripture) mentions slander, it does not say "great" (in the masculine singular, as in Gen. 4:13), or "great" (in the feminine singular, as in Gen. 39:9 and Exod. 32:31), but "great" (in the feminine plural). Thus it is written (in Ps. 12:4), “The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, [every] tongue speaking great things (in the feminine plural).” It is therefore stated (in Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue.” [Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Do not say, “Since I have license to speak, I am therefore speaking whatever I want.” See, the Torah has already warned you (in Ps. 34:14), “Keep your tongue from evil [and your lips from speaking deceit].” Perhaps you will say that you are suffering a loss. Are you not profiting instead? So the holy spirit proclaims (in Prov. 21:23), “The one who guards his mouth and his tongue guards his soul from trouble (tsarot).” Do not read this as “from trouble.” Instead [read it as], "from leprosy (tsar'at).” Another interpretation (of Prov. 18:21), “Death and life are in the power of the tongue”: Slander is so harmful that one does not produce it from his mouth without denying the Holy One, blessed be He.¹²M. Ps. 52:2. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 12:5), “Those who say, ‘By our tongues we shall prevail; our lips are with us, who is to be our Lord?’” The Holy One, blessed be He, as it were, cried out against those who speak slander (in Ps. 94:16), “Who will stand for Me against evildoers…?” Who can stand against them? And who will stand against them? Geihinnom? But Geihinnom also cries out, “I am unable to stand against them.” [Then] the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “I [will come at them] from above and you (Geihinnom), from below. I will hurl darts from above; and you will turn on them with burning coals from below.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 120:4), “Sharp darts of the warrior along with burning coals of broom wood.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Do you want to be delivered from Geihinnom? Keep yourselves far away from the deceitful tongue. Then you will be acquitted in this world and in the world to come.” Thus it is stated (in Ps. 34:13), “Who is the one who desires life….” And it is [then] written (in vs. 14), “Keep your tongue from evil and your lips from speaking deceit […].” Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper,” to teach you that one who speaks slander will have blemishes come to him, as it is stated, “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora'),” [i.e.] the one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra')¹³Above, 5:1; ySot. 2:1 (17d); ‘Arakh. 15b; Cf. Lev. R. 16:1. will find evil, in that he will have leprosy come upon him. See what is written about Miriam (in Numb. 12:1), “Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses.” Therefore (in vs. 10), “then Aaron turned unto Miriam, and there was [Miriam] with leprosy like the snow.” What is written elsewhere (in Deut. 24:9)? “Remember what the Lord your God did to Miriam […].” And is it not all the more so? For if Miriam had this happen, when she only spoke against her beloved brother when he was absent¹⁴I.e., she spoke privately to Aaron with no desire to be hostile to Moses. Cf. Sifre, Numb. 12:1 (99:2). and was only intending to return him to his wife, how much the more so in the case of one who utters slander against his colleague? What is written above on the matter (in Deut. 24:8)? “Take care with the plague of leprosy [to watch diligently and do according to all that the priests and Levites shall teach…].” So the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, also afflicted with it Aaron, who was high priest. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 12:9), “And the anger of the Lord was kindled against them, [i.e.] against Aaron and against Miriam.” Aaron, however, was healed immediately; but Miriam, after seven days, as stated (in Numb. 12:15), “So Miriam was shut up [outside of the camp] for seven days.” Ergo (in Lev. 14:2), “This shall be the law of the leper (metsora').” The one who proclaims evil (motsi' ra') is the one who finds evil (motse' ra'). And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander [to Eve] against his Creator, for that reason he became leprous.¹⁵Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’ He said to her, ‘Every artisan hates his fellow [artisan].¹⁶The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when [the Holy One, blessed be He,] wanted to create His world, He ate from this tree. So he created His world. You [two] also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like Him.’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said to [the serpent], ‘You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy.’” It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, “Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be than all the beasts of the field.” With what did he curse ('araroh) him? With leprosy. Now a curse can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52), “for it is a malignant (mam'eret) leprosy.”¹⁷The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna said in the name of R. Joshua ben Levi, “The scales which are on the snake are his leprosy.”¹⁸Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.¹⁹Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14), “more cursed shall you be than all the beasts.” From here [we learn] that they all shall be healed, but [the serpent] shall not be healed. People shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5), “Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened….” It is also [written about] the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25), “The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion like the ox shall eat straw, but the serpent's food shall be dust”; as he will never be healed, because he [was the one who] brought all mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have [this punishment]? [It happened] because he had spoken slander.

“And did not remember His footstool [hadom raglav],” Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yitzḥak said: The Holy One blessed be He does not remember that blood [hadam] that was between the legs of the elder, as it is stated: “Abraham was ninety-nine years old when he was circumcised on the flesh of his foreskin” (Genesis 17:24). Rabbi Yudan said: [This is analogous] to a king who seized his enemies and killed them, and the residents of his province were dipping their feet in the blood of his enemies. One time, they provoked him and he expelled them from his palace. They said: ‘The king does not remember to our credit that blood in which we dipped our feet, the blood of his enemies.’ So too, Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘You do not remember to our credit that blood that was in Egypt, as it is stated: “You shall take from the blood and you shall place it on the doorposts and on the lintel”’ (Exodus 12:7).
Alternatively, “and did not remember His footstool,” footstool is nothing other than the Temple. That is what is written: “Exalt the Lord our God and prostrate yourselves to His footstool; He is holy” (Psalms 99:5). “On the day of His wrath,” Rabbi Aḥa said: The wrath of the Holy One blessed be He was one day. Had Israel repented, they would have moderated it.
“He called in my ears with a loud voice, saying: Those appointed over the city, approach, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand” (Ezekiel 9:1). Until when is the sin of the calf in existence?¹²Until when will Israel be punished for the sin of the Golden Calf? Rabbi Berekhya, and some say Rabbi Neḥemya ben Elazar, [said]: Until the calves of Yerovam ben Nevat.¹³Until Yerovam constructed his calves (see I Kings 12:28). That is what is written: “When I will heal Israel, the iniquity of Ephraim and the evildoing of Samaria will be revealed” (Hosea 7:1). The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘I came to heal Israel of the sin of the calf, and the evils of Samaria were revealed.’ Rabbi Yishmael bar Naḥmani said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Until the destruction of the Temple, as it is written: “Those appointed over the city [pekudot] approach, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand” (Ezekiel 9:1), and it is written: “And on the day of My reckoning, I will reckon [pakadti] their sin upon them” (Exodus 32:34).
It is written: “And behold, six men were coming from the way of the Upper Gate, which faces northward, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand, and one man in their midst was clad in linen, with a scribe's inkwell at his waist. They came and they stood beside the bronze altar” (Ezekiel 9:2). It says six here, but were there not five decrees? As it is written: “And to those He said in my earshot: Pass through the city behind him and smite; let your eye not pity and do not have compassion” (Ezekiel 9:5). And it is written: “Slay utterly the elderly, the youth, the young woman and the child, and the women” (Ezekiel 9:6).¹⁴The men referred to in Ezekiel 9:2 are angels of destruction, yet there are only five groups of people mentioned in the verse as slated for destruction, so five angels should have sufficed. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: He spoke to the most severe angel in their midst, this is Gavriel, as it is stated: “And one man in their midst was clad in linen, with a scribe's inkwell at his waist” (Ezekiel 9:2).¹⁵This angel was one of the six, but it did not actually carry out the destruction.
That angel served in three capacities: Scribe, executioner, and a High Priest. A scribe as it is written: “With a scribe's inkwell at his waist.” An executioner, as it is stated: “He destroyed them, delivered them to slaughter.” (Isaiah 34:2).¹⁶The verse ascribes this destruction and slaughter to “rage [ketzef],” which is identified as Gavriel (see Shabbat 55a). This destruction took place at a different time than that described in Ezekiel chap. 9. High Priest, as it is stated: “And one man in their midst was clad in linen,” and it is written regarding a priest: “He shall don a sacred linen tunic” (Leviticus 16:4).
“Each with his weapon of destruction [mapatzo] in his hand” (Ezekiel 9:1), his weapons, his razing equipment, and his equipment for causing exile. His weapons, “each with his weapon of destruction in his hand,” his razing equipment, “As he renders all the altar stones like shattered limestone” (Isaiah 27:9), his equipment for causing exile, as it is written: “You are a weapon of destruction [mapetz]¹⁷This word is related to the word lehafitz, which connotes scattering and dispersal. for Me, weapons of war” (Jeremiah 51:20).
And it is written: “They came and they stood beside the bronze altar” (Ezekiel 9:2). Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: Until the place of its boundary.¹⁸The altar in the courtyard of the Temple was stone, not bronze (see Shabbat 55a and Rashi ad loc.), but it served the same functions as the bronze altar in the courtyard of the Tabernacle. One of its functions was to serve as a boundary beyond which non-priests were not permitted to go. The angels described in this verse were also not permitted to go past this demarcation point. The Rabbis say: They stand and call attention the sins of Aḥaz, in whose regard it is written: “The bronze altar will be for me to visit” (II Kings 16:15). What is to visit [levaker]? Rabbi Pinḥas said: He disqualified it and rendered it blemished,¹⁹It was as though all the animals sacrificed on it were blemished. just as it says: “The priest shall not deem impure [yevaker]” (Leviticus 13:36). “The Lord said to him [elav]: Pass through the midst of the city…Jerusalem” (Ezekiel 9:4). Elo is written.²⁰The word elav is written without a yod, such that it can be read elo, which means his powerful one. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: to the most severe angel among them, .
“You shall set a mark [tav] [upon the foreheads of the men…]” (Ezekiel 9:4). Rav Naḥman said: These are the people who fulfilled the Torah from alef through tav.²¹The tav was made on the foreheads of the righteous. The Rabbis say: [It connoted] disintegration and dissolution.²²The tav was made on the heads of the wicked. Rav said: A tav was placed because it connotes either side: Desolation, desolation [tihi] and live, live [teḥi].²³A tav was marked on the foreheads of both the righteous and the wicked, but it connoted different things for different people. Rabbi Ḥanina bar Yitzḥak said: The merit of their ancestors has concluded [tama].
Rabbi Hoshaya sent [a message] to Rabbi Simon, saying: ‘Since you are situated in the household of the Exilarch, why do you not rebuke them?’ He said to him: ‘If only we may be among those of whom it is written, “[the men] that sigh and that cry [for all the abominations that are done in its midst”’ (Ezekiel 9:4).²⁴It is enough for us to be pained at the sin of others, even if we do not rebuke them, and then we will be like those mentioned in the verse in Ezekiel, who were marked for life while the sinners were marked for death. He said to him: ‘But was it not from them that the calamity began? As it is written: “And to those He said in my earshot: [Pass through the city behind him and smite; let your eye not pity and do not have compassion]”’ (Ezekiel 9:5).
Rabbi Elazar said: The Holy One blessed be He never associates His name with evil, but rather with good. That is what is written [in this verse]. And to those God said in my earshot is not written here, but rather: “And to those He said in my earshot: Pass through the city behind him and smite; let your eye not pity and do not have compassion.”²⁵The verse uses the pronoun rather than explicitly mentioning God so that His name not be directly associated with destruction. “The elderly, the youth and the maiden, the children and the women you shall kill for destruction, but do not approach any man upon whom is the sign; begin from My Temple” (Ezekiel 9:6). How is it so?²⁶The verse states that the angels were not to kill any man with a sign, indicating that the righteous would be spared, but then states that the destruction was to begin at the Temple, where there were presumably righteous individuals. At that moment, prosecution sprung before the Throne of Glory. It said before Him: ‘Master of the universe: Which of them was killed for the sake of Your name? Which of them had his brain pierced for the sake of Your name? Which of them gave his life for the sake of Your name?’²⁷The heavenly prosecutor argued that the people had not suffered in God’s name and therefore were not really righteous. He said: ‘They do not warrant a writ of condemnation.’ Rabbi Aivu said: The Holy One blessed be He said: ‘Let My Temple be destroyed but let no hand touch the righteous.’²⁸The righteous were to be spared but the Temple itself was to be destroyed . Rabbi Yehuda ben Rabbi Simon said: It and they warrant a writ of condemnation.²⁹According to this view, God accepted the argument of the prosecutor and ruled that both the Temple and the righteous would be destroyed.
Rabbi Tanḥuma and Rabbi Abba [said] in the name of Rabbi Abba:³⁰The reference is to two different scholars by the name of Rabbi Abba. The Holy One blessed be He never said a positive statement and recanted, but here He recanted. That is what is written: “Begin with My Temple” (Ezekiel 9:6). Do not read it as My Temple [mikdashi], but rather as My holy ones [mekudashai]: “Begin with My holy ones.” Immediately, what is written: “It was as they were smiting, and I remained and I fell upon my face, and I cried out and said: Alas, Lord God, are You destroying the entire remnant of Israel?” (Ezekiel 9:8). “Remnant” is nothing other than the righteous; therefore he comes and says: “The Lord demolished and had no compassion.”

“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and the woman was bereft of her two children and of her husband” (Ruth 1:5).
“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.” Rabbi Ḥunya, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Zavda, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi [said]: The all-Merciful [God] never exacts retribution against a person himself initially. From whom do you learn this? From Job, as it is stated: “There came a messenger to Job, and said: ‘The oxen were plowing [and the donkeys grazing beside them; and Sheba fell upon them, and took them; they smote the servants by sword; and only I by myself escaped to tell you]’” (Job 1:14–15).⁹⁰God did not initially kill Job or even afflict him with bodily pain; He struck Job’s property. Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Holy One blessed be He showed him a representative taste of the World to Come, “the plowman will meet the reaper” (Amos 9:13).⁹¹Donkeys do not typically graze in fields where oxen have just plowed. This was Job’s taste of the World to Come, when produce will be ready to be reaped as the field is still being plowed.
“Sheba fell upon them [and took them and smote the lads by sword].” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They emerged from the village of Kerinos⁹²In Media. and went on all the rural paths until Migdal Tzabba’im⁹³In the Land of Israel. and they died there.⁹⁴At first they were attacked and taken captive along with the herd. Only later were they killed. “And only [rak] I by myself [levadi] escaped.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: [The term] Rak is restrictive; he, too, was broken and stricken. Rabbi Yudan said: Levadi.⁹⁵In the sense of bedding, meaning that the messenger was bedridden. The word leved means felt, which can be used for bedding. “This one was still speaking” (Job 1:16); he, too, once he stated his tidings, he died.
“This one was still speaking and that one came and said: The Chaldeans deployed in three columns…” (Job 1:17). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When Job heard, he began mobilizing his armies for war. He said: ‘How many armies can I enlist, how many troops can I muster? This is the most despicable nation in the world: “Behold, the land of the Chaldeans, this is a people that is not” (Isaiah 23:13). If only it had not been.⁹⁶If only the Chaldeans had never come into existence. It comes to intimidate me?’ But once [the messenger] said to him: “The fire of God fell from the heavens” (Job 1:16), [Job] said: ‘It is from the heavens; what can I do?’ – “I was silent and I did not go out the door” (Job 31:34).
Immediately, “he took an earthenware shard to scratch himself” (Job 2:8).⁹⁷This was after he was afflicted with boils. His body was afflicted only after his property was damaged. So it was in Egypt, as well: “He struck their vines and their fig trees” (Psalms 105:33). Then, “He subjected their livestock to the hail” (Psalms 78:48). And then, “He smote every firstborn in Egypt” (Psalms 78:51). Regarding leprosy, too, the same is true: Initially it afflicts his house. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require removal, as it is stated: “The priest shall command and they will remove [the stones]” (Leviticus 14:40). If he repents, excellent; if not, they require demolition. If he repents, excellent; if not, [the signs of leprosy] come upon his garments and they require laundering. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require rending, as it is stated: “He shall rip it from the garment” (Leviticus 13:56). If he repents, excellent; if not they require burning, as it is stated: “He shall burn the garment” (Leviticus 13:52). Then [leprosy] comes upon his body. If he repents, excellent; if not, he goes and comes.⁹⁸He leaves the camp for seven days and then returns. If he repents, excellent; if not, “he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). Regarding Maḥlon and Kilyon, too, the same is true. Initially, it was their horses, their donkeys, and their camels. Then “Elimelekh died.” Then, “both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.”
“And the woman remained bereft,” Rabbi Ḥanina said: She became the remnants of the remnants [of meal offerings].⁹⁹When her husband died, she was like the remnant; now that her sons died, she was like the remnant of the remnant.

“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and the woman was bereft of her two children and of her husband” (Ruth 1:5).
“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.” Rabbi Ḥunya, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Zavda, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi [said]: The all-Merciful [God] never exacts retribution against a person himself initially. From whom do you learn this? From Job, as it is stated: “There came a messenger to Job, and said: ‘The oxen were plowing [and the donkeys grazing beside them; and Sheba fell upon them, and took them; they smote the servants by sword; and only I by myself escaped to tell you]’” (Job 1:14–15).⁹⁰God did not initially kill Job or even afflict him with bodily pain; He struck Job’s property. Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Holy One blessed be He showed him a representative taste of the World to Come, “the plowman will meet the reaper” (Amos 9:13).⁹¹Donkeys do not typically graze in fields where oxen have just plowed. This was Job’s taste of the World to Come, when produce will be ready to be reaped as the field is still being plowed.
“Sheba fell upon them [and took them and smote the lads by sword].” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They emerged from the village of Kerinos⁹²In Media. and went on all the rural paths until Migdal Tzabba’im⁹³In the Land of Israel. and they died there.⁹⁴At first they were attacked and taken captive along with the herd. Only later were they killed. “And only [rak] I by myself [levadi] escaped.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: [The term] Rak is restrictive; he, too, was broken and stricken. Rabbi Yudan said: Levadi.⁹⁵In the sense of bedding, meaning that the messenger was bedridden. The word leved means felt, which can be used for bedding. “This one was still speaking” (Job 1:16); he, too, once he stated his tidings, he died.
“This one was still speaking and that one came and said: The Chaldeans deployed in three columns…” (Job 1:17). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When Job heard, he began mobilizing his armies for war. He said: ‘How many armies can I enlist, how many troops can I muster? This is the most despicable nation in the world: “Behold, the land of the Chaldeans, this is a people that is not” (Isaiah 23:13). If only it had not been.⁹⁶If only the Chaldeans had never come into existence. It comes to intimidate me?’ But once [the messenger] said to him: “The fire of God fell from the heavens” (Job 1:16), [Job] said: ‘It is from the heavens; what can I do?’ – “I was silent and I did not go out the door” (Job 31:34).
Immediately, “he took an earthenware shard to scratch himself” (Job 2:8).⁹⁷This was after he was afflicted with boils. His body was afflicted only after his property was damaged. So it was in Egypt, as well: “He struck their vines and their fig trees” (Psalms 105:33). Then, “He subjected their livestock to the hail” (Psalms 78:48). And then, “He smote every firstborn in Egypt” (Psalms 78:51). Regarding leprosy, too, the same is true: Initially it afflicts his house. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require removal, as it is stated: “The priest shall command and they will remove [the stones]” (Leviticus 14:40). If he repents, excellent; if not, they require demolition. If he repents, excellent; if not, [the signs of leprosy] come upon his garments and they require laundering. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require rending, as it is stated: “He shall rip it from the garment” (Leviticus 13:56). If he repents, excellent; if not they require burning, as it is stated: “He shall burn the garment” (Leviticus 13:52). Then [leprosy] comes upon his body. If he repents, excellent; if not, he goes and comes.⁹⁸He leaves the camp for seven days and then returns. If he repents, excellent; if not, “he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). Regarding Maḥlon and Kilyon, too, the same is true. Initially, it was their horses, their donkeys, and their camels. Then “Elimelekh died.” Then, “both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.”
“And the woman remained bereft,” Rabbi Ḥanina said: She became the remnants of the remnants [of meal offerings].⁹⁹When her husband died, she was like the remnant; now that her sons died, she was like the remnant of the remnant.

“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon, and the woman was bereft of her two children and of her husband” (Ruth 1:5).
“Both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.” Rabbi Ḥunya, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Rabbi Avin, and Rabbi Zavda, son-in-law of Rabbi Levi [said]: The all-Merciful [God] never exacts retribution against a person himself initially. From whom do you learn this? From Job, as it is stated: “There came a messenger to Job, and said: ‘The oxen were plowing [and the donkeys grazing beside them; and Sheba fell upon them, and took them; they smote the servants by sword; and only I by myself escaped to tell you]’” (Job 1:14–15).⁹⁰God did not initially kill Job or even afflict him with bodily pain; He struck Job’s property. Rabbi Ḥama ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: The Holy One blessed be He showed him a representative taste of the World to Come, “the plowman will meet the reaper” (Amos 9:13).⁹¹Donkeys do not typically graze in fields where oxen have just plowed. This was Job’s taste of the World to Come, when produce will be ready to be reaped as the field is still being plowed.
“Sheba fell upon them [and took them and smote the lads by sword].” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: They emerged from the village of Kerinos⁹²In Media. and went on all the rural paths until Migdal Tzabba’im⁹³In the Land of Israel. and they died there.⁹⁴At first they were attacked and taken captive along with the herd. Only later were they killed. “And only [rak] I by myself [levadi] escaped.” Rabbi Ḥanina said: [The term] Rak is restrictive; he, too, was broken and stricken. Rabbi Yudan said: Levadi.⁹⁵In the sense of bedding, meaning that the messenger was bedridden. The word leved means felt, which can be used for bedding. “This one was still speaking” (Job 1:16); he, too, once he stated his tidings, he died.
“This one was still speaking and that one came and said: The Chaldeans deployed in three columns…” (Job 1:17). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said: When Job heard, he began mobilizing his armies for war. He said: ‘How many armies can I enlist, how many troops can I muster? This is the most despicable nation in the world: “Behold, the land of the Chaldeans, this is a people that is not” (Isaiah 23:13). If only it had not been.⁹⁶If only the Chaldeans had never come into existence. It comes to intimidate me?’ But once [the messenger] said to him: “The fire of God fell from the heavens” (Job 1:16), [Job] said: ‘It is from the heavens; what can I do?’ – “I was silent and I did not go out the door” (Job 31:34).
Immediately, “he took an earthenware shard to scratch himself” (Job 2:8).⁹⁷This was after he was afflicted with boils. His body was afflicted only after his property was damaged. So it was in Egypt, as well: “He struck their vines and their fig trees” (Psalms 105:33). Then, “He subjected their livestock to the hail” (Psalms 78:48). And then, “He smote every firstborn in Egypt” (Psalms 78:51). Regarding leprosy, too, the same is true: Initially it afflicts his house. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require removal, as it is stated: “The priest shall command and they will remove [the stones]” (Leviticus 14:40). If he repents, excellent; if not, they require demolition. If he repents, excellent; if not, [the signs of leprosy] come upon his garments and they require laundering. If he repents, excellent; if not, they require rending, as it is stated: “He shall rip it from the garment” (Leviticus 13:56). If he repents, excellent; if not they require burning, as it is stated: “He shall burn the garment” (Leviticus 13:52). Then [leprosy] comes upon his body. If he repents, excellent; if not, he goes and comes.⁹⁸He leaves the camp for seven days and then returns. If he repents, excellent; if not, “he shall dwell in isolation, his dwelling shall be outside the camp” (Leviticus 13:46). Regarding Maḥlon and Kilyon, too, the same is true. Initially, it was their horses, their donkeys, and their camels. Then “Elimelekh died.” Then, “both of them died, Maḥlon and Kilyon.”
“And the woman remained bereft,” Rabbi Ḥanina said: She became the remnants of the remnants [of meal offerings].⁹⁹When her husband died, she was like the remnant; now that her sons died, she was like the remnant of the remnant.

2) "if there shall be": from this pronouncement on, (and not what may have existed before it, (their being in this respect like a proselyte before conversion [see above]). — (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: Zavim (those with a genital discharge) are tamei, and (those with) negaim are tamei. Just as (tumah) does not obtain with zavim before the pronouncement, so, it does not obtain with negaim before the pronouncement.

2) "It (is leprosy"): This teaches us that it (also) confers tumah if it did not precede the se'eth. Now (even without the verse) would it not follow a fortiori that it does so, viz.): If white hair, which does not confer tumah if it precedes the se'eth (does confer tumah if it follows the se'eth), then michyah, which does confer tumah if it precedes the se'eth, how much more so should it confer tumah if it follows the se'eth! … It must, therefore, be written "It," to teach us that it confers tumah if it follows the se'eth.

2) I might think that all of the inspections of the day are kasher. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:12): "to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein." Just as with the Cohein — except when the light of his eyes has dimmed, so with the day — except when the light of the day has dimmed.

2) "all the skin of the plague-spot": skin which is susceptible of a plague-spot — to exclude a "rebellious" boil or a "rebellious" burn. — But perhaps the intent (of "all the skin of the plague-spot") is (the amount of) skin that is susceptible of (the minimal size of) a plague-spot — a garis — that that (if it is not covered) can impede "all of the skin"); but that which is not susceptible of a plague-spot the size of a garis does not impede it. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "all of it has turned white." If "all of it has turned white," I might think (even) the midst of his head (must be covered to qualify as "all of his skin"); it is, therefore, written "from his head" — to exclude the midst of his head; "until his feet" — to exclude the midst (i.e., the soles) of his feet.

2) "if it be": from the pronouncement on (see Section 1:2). "in a man": to include the plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei (i.e., even though if all of the man turned white he is tahor (viz. Vayikra 13:13), still, if there is a michyah in the plague-spot, he is tamei because of the michyah.) Now (why is a verse needed to tell me this?) does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If a michyah causes tumah in a small bahereth (the size of a garis), how much more so does it cause tumah in a large bahereth (which covers his entire body! — No, this may be true of a small bahereth, which is a sign of tumah. Would you then say the same for a large bahereth, which is not a sign of tumah! Since it is not a sign of tumah, (we would say that) a michyah should not cause tumah in it. It must, therefore, be written "in a man," to include a plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei.

2) "And on the day": We are hereby (by this redundancy) taught that he (a groom) is given two (types of days [the seven days of the marriage feast and those of a festival]) for (non-inspection of plague-spots): for (those of) his body, for (those of) his house, and for those of his garments. These are the words of R. Yehudah. Rebbi says (that a special verse is not required for this, for) it is written (Vayikra 14:36): "And the Cohein shall command, (and they shall empty out the house before the Cohein comes in to see the plague-spot, so that there not be made unclean all that is in the house.") If they wait for a mundane matter, shall they not wait for a matter of mitzvah! And how much (i.e., how many days) is his mitzvah? For a groom we allow the seven days of the marriage feast, for himself, his house, and his garments. And thus on a festival — we allow him all the days of the festival.

2) "and it return to white": (even to the appearance of bohak (white scurf). For I would say that since in the beginning it is a sign of tumah (i.e., it impedes "complete blossoming," which would render him tahor), then in the end (with later repetitions or the same) it would remain the same, it is, therefore, written "and it return to white" (even) to the appearance of bohak.

2) How (is the verse to be understood)? There was (a se'eth) in the skin of the flesh before the arrival of the boil (in that place). R. Eliezer b. Yaakov ruled it (a se'eth that preceded the boil) tamei, and the sages ruled it tahor.

2) I might think that just as it (bahereth) is third in order of the verse (Vayikra 13:2), it is third in order of appearance (i.e., of brightness); it is, therefore, written "white." It is white and there is no (white) above it in brightness. And what is its whiteness like? Like (the whiteness of) snow, as it is written (Bamidbar 12:10) "And, behold, Miriam was as leprous as snow."

2) I might think that though they do not combine with each other, they can spread from one to the other (vis-à-vis "spreading" uncleanliness); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:30) "leprosy of the head or the beard" — Just as they do not combine with each other, so they do not spread from one to the other.

2) "If hair in the plague-spot": at least two hairs. "in the plague-spot": to include (as tamei) a hair rooted in the nega and lying outside of it; to exclude a hair rooted outside the nega and lying in it. "has turned white": and not (if it was white) before (the appearance of the plague-spot). From here they ruled: If the bahereth preceded the white hair, he is tamei; if the white hair preceded the bahereth, he is tahor; if there is a doubt (as to which preceded which), he is tamei. R. Yehoshua says: It is "dim" (and he is to be quarantined).

2) I might think that though they do not combine with each other, they can spread from one to the other (vis-à-vis "spreading" uncleanliness); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:30) "leprosy of the head or the beard" — Just as they do not combine with each other, so they do not spread from one to the other.

2) (Now why is a verse needed for this?) Does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If white hair, which other hair does not "rescue" (from conferring tumah [i.e., black hair in that site does not prevent the white hair from conferring tumah]) — (If white hair) confers tumah only if the nega precedes it, how much more so should thin yellow hair, which other hair does rescue (from conferring tumah [i.e., black hair in that site does prevent the yellow hair from conferring tumah) — (How much more so should yellow hair) confer tumah only if the nega precedes it! — No, (the verse is needed, for) this may be the case with white hair which is powerless in its place to confer tumah within (a nega of) any appearance, (but only in a nega of one of the four "appearances"), as opposed to thin yellow hair, which has the power in its place to confer tumah within (a nethek of) any appearance. And since this is the case, I would say that it confers tumah whether or not the nethek precedes it. It must, therefore, be written "the nega of the nethek." Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as a nega confers tumah only if it precedes the white hair, so a nethek confers tumah only if it precedes the yellow hair.

2) For I might think that the skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through four "appearances," requires daylight, but nethakim, which do not confer tumah through four appearances, do not require daylight; it must, therefore, be written (also in respect to nethakim) "in the daytime," and not at night.

2) Whence is it derived that if he had a nethek the size of a garis and it came to cover his entire head, he is clean? From (Vayikra 13:40) "And a man, if the hair of his head falls out … he is clean." I might think that the beard (if it does not bald) prevents (the head from being tahor if it balds) and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of the face and the skin of the (rest of) the flesh, which are separated by something else (the beard) prevent each other (from becoming tahor [if one of them does not turn white, so that it can be considered "all white"]), then the (skin of the head and the beard, which are not separated by anything — how much more so should they prevent each other (from becoming tahor if one of them balds but not the other)! It is, therefore, written "his head" — (Even if) his head (alone balds), and not his beard, "he is clean."

2) I might think that just as it (bahereth) is third in order of the verse (Vayikra 13:2), it is third in order of appearance (i.e., of brightness); it is, therefore, written "white." It is white and there is no (white) above it in brightness. And what is its whiteness like? Like (the whiteness of) snow, as it is written (Bamidbar 12:10) "And, behold, Miriam was as leprous as snow."

2) Whence is it derived that if he had a nethek the size of a garis and it came to cover his entire head, he is clean? From (Vayikra 13:40) "And a man, if the hair of his head falls out … he is clean." I might think that the beard (if it does not bald) prevents (the head from being tahor if it balds) and that this follows a fortiori, viz.: If the skin of the face and the skin of the (rest of) the flesh, which are separated by something else (the beard) prevent each other (from becoming tahor [if one of them does not turn white, so that it can be considered "all white"]), then the (skin of the head and the beard, which are not separated by anything — how much more so should they prevent each other (from becoming tahor if one of them balds but not the other)! It is, therefore, written "his head" — (Even if) his head (alone balds), and not his beard, "he is clean."

2) "blossoming": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah by spreading. "it": It does not confer tumah through white hair. For (had "it" not been written for this exclusion,) it would follow a fortiori (that it does confer tumah through white hair), viz.: If boil or burn, which do not confer tumah through michyah, do confer tumah through white hair, then karachath or gabachath, which do confer tumah through michyah, how much more so should they confer tumah through white hair! It is, therefore, written "it," to teach us that it does not confer tumah through white hair.

2) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean": We are hereby taught that his uncleanliness must be declared by a Cohein (If not, he is not tamei.) This tells me only of this (afflicted one) alone. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."

2) This tells me of garments completely of wool or completely of flax. Whence do we derive for inclusion intermixtures? From "And the garment." This tells me only of one of the varieties that is partially intermixed. Whence do I derive for inclusion one of the varieties that is totally intermixed or intermixtures that are totally or partially interwoven? From "And the garment." This tells me only of a garment (the size of) three by three (fingers). Whence do I derive a garment lacking three by three? From "And the garment." This tells me only (of a plague-spot) which has room to spread (see Vayikra 13:51). Whence do I derive (a plague-spot) which does not have room to spread? From "And the garment." These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Yishmael said to him: "You tell me to write! Wait until I can assimilate (all that you have said)!" R. Eliezer retorted: "Yishmael, you are a mountain-palm!" (much too rash).

2) "if the plague-spot is yerakrak": I might think any shade of yarok (green); it is, therefore, written "yerakrak," the greenest of the green (i.e., deep green). "adamdam": I might think any shade of adom (red); it is, therefore, written "adamdam," the reddest of the red. "yerakrak or adamdam": We are hereby taught that they are not subject to tumah intermixed. I might think that just as they are not subject to tumah intermixed, they do not combine with each other (for the minimum size for tumah, a garis); it is, therefore, written "And it shall be" (connoting that they do combine).

2) I might think that all of the inspections of the day are kasher. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:12): "to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein." Just as with the Cohein — except when the light of his eyes has dimmed, so with the day — except when the light of the day has dimmed.

2) This tells me of garments completely of wool or completely of flax. Whence do we derive for inclusion intermixtures? From "And the garment." This tells me only of one of the varieties that is partially intermixed. Whence do I derive for inclusion one of the varieties that is totally intermixed or intermixtures that are totally or partially interwoven? From "And the garment." This tells me only of a garment (the size of) three by three (fingers). Whence do I derive a garment lacking three by three? From "And the garment." This tells me only (of a plague-spot) which has room to spread (see Vayikra 13:51). Whence do I derive (a plague-spot) which does not have room to spread? From "And the garment." These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Yishmael said to him: "You tell me to write! Wait until I can assimilate (all that you have said)!" R. Eliezer retorted: "Yishmael, you are a mountain-palm!" (much too rash).

2) If so, why is it written "of wool or of flax"? To exclude (from the requirement of burning) appendages (to the garment, which are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness.)

2) If "from the garment," I might think that he could tear it out and throw the torn pieces on the dung heap; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) "In fire shall you burn it, what contains the plague-spot," to teach us that the torn pieces require burning.

2) "if it be": from the pronouncement on (see Section 1:2). "in a man": to include the plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei (i.e., even though if all of the man turned white he is tahor (viz. Vayikra 13:13), still, if there is a michyah in the plague-spot, he is tamei because of the michyah.) Now (why is a verse needed to tell me this?) does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If a michyah causes tumah in a small bahereth (the size of a garis), how much more so does it cause tumah in a large bahereth (which covers his entire body! — No, this may be true of a small bahereth, which is a sign of tumah. Would you then say the same for a large bahereth, which is not a sign of tumah! Since it is not a sign of tumah, (we would say that) a michyah should not cause tumah in it. It must, therefore, be written "in a man," to include a plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei.

(Numb. 19:2:) “This is the statute of the Torah.” This text is related (to Job 14:4), “Who can produce something clean out of something unclean; is it not One?”³²English translations usually translate these last four words as NO ONE. [Who], for example, [produced] Abraham out of Terah, Hezekiah out of Ahaz, Josiah out of Amon, Mordecai out of Shimei, Israel out of the nations of the world, the world to come out of this world?³³Numb. R. 19:1; PRK, 4:1. [So] who did so? Who commanded so? And who decreed so? Is it not One? Is it not the Singular Being of the World? We have learned elsewhere (in Neg. 8:2),³⁴Cf. ibid. 8:3, 6-9. “If one has a bright spot the size of a bean, he is unclean”³⁵The traditional Mishnah text here does not specifically declare such a one unclean, although the uncleanness may be inferred, especially when the passage is read in connection with Lev. 13:2-3.; [yet] if it has burst out all over him, he is clean. Who did so? Who decreed so? Who commanded so? Is it not One? Is it not the Singular Being of the World? We have learned elsewhere (in Hul. 4:3), “In the case of the woman whose fetus died within her belly, if [a midwife] inserted her hand [into the womb] and touched it, the midwife is unclean for seven days, but the woman remains clean until the fetus comes forth. And so it is that while the dead person is in the house, the house is clean; when he comes forth from it, he makes it unclean.” Who did this? Is it not One? Is it not the Singular Being of the World? We have learned elsewhere (in Parah 4:4; Hul. 29b), “All who are occupied with the [rite of the red] cow from beginning to end render [their] clothes unclean, while the [cow] herself makes [what is unclean] clean.” Thus the Holy One, blessed be He, has said, “I have enacted a statute for you; I have issued a decree! So you are not authorized to transgress against my decree.”

(Lev. 14:2:) “In the day of his cleansing.” [With what?]²⁰Lev. R. 16:7. With (according to vs. 4) “two live clean birds.” How is his offering different from all [other] offerings? It is simply that he has spoken slander. Therefore, the text says that his sacrifice is two birds, because they (like slanderers) carry their voices. (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And cedar wood.” In the case of the cedar, no tree is taller (gevoha) than that one; so because [the leper] has exalted (gevoha) himself like a cedar, [he has had] the leprosy come upon him.²¹PRK 4:3. Thus Simeon ben Eleazar has said, “Leprosy comes on account of haughtiness, for so you find in the case of Uzziah (in II Chron. 26:16), ‘But when he was strong, he grew so arrogant that he acted corruptly,’ and it is written (in II Chron. 26:19), ‘but during his anger with the priests, leprosy appeared on his forehead.’” (Lev. 14:4, cont.:) “And with hyssop.” Among the trees there is none [as short] as the hyssop. Because [the leper] has lowered himself, [leprosy] is therefore cured through the hyssop. (Lev. 14:5:) “[Then the priest shall give a command] to kill one bird.” Why kill one and release one? It is simply that, if he has repented, the leprosy shall not return upon him.²²Cf. Lev. 16:9. (Lev. 14:2:) “[This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing:] He shall be brought unto the priest.” What is the meaning of “He shall be brought (rt.: bw')?” He comes (rt.: bw'). Why? Because everything is far off and separated from him, for so David says (in Ps. 38:12), “My friends and companions stand aloof from my affliction, and my kinfolk stand far off.” So also it says (in Lev. 13:46), “he shall dwell alone; his dwelling shall be outside the camp,” outside the camp of Israel. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 14:2), “he shall be brought (rt.: bw'),” [meaning] he comes (rt.: bw').

To what does a council of wicked men refer? To the following: Shebna, would expound [in his college] with thirteen great men, and Hezekiah would expound with only eleven. When Sancherib came to attack Jerusalem, Shebna wrote a note and shot it with an arrow [into Sancherib's camp]. The note read: "Shebna and his party are willing to make peace, but Hezekiah and his party are not willing to make peace, as it is said (Ps. 11, 2) For lo, the wicked bend their bow, they arrange their arrow upon the string." And Hezekiah feared, since, perhaps the inclination of the Holy One, praised be He! would be towards the majority, whose desire was to deliver themselves to the enemy, that he would also have to deliver himself to them. The prophet then came to him saying (Is. 8, 12) Say ye not a conspiracy, concerning all whereof this people do say: A conspiracy; i.e., they are only a council of wicked men, and [a measure passed in] a council of wicked men does not hold. He (Shebna) went and hewed out a cave for a grave for himself amongst the graves of King David's house, and this is why the prophet said to him(Ib. 22, 16, 17) What hast thou here? and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn out for thyself here a sepulchre? … Behold, the Lord will hurl thee up and down with a man's throw. Rab said: "From this is to be inferred that the sufferings of homelessness are harder for a man to bear than for a woman." R. Jose b. Chanina said: "From this we infer that Shebna was punished with leprosy, for it is written here: He will roll you up (A'ate) as a bundle, and it is written [concerning a leper] (Lev. 13, 45) And he shall cover (Ya'ate) himself up to the upper lip. (Ib) He will roll thee up as a bundle, and [toss thee] like a ball unto a country of ample space." It was taught in a Baraitha: His (Shebna's) desire was to disgrace the house of his master, and therefore he himself was put to shame; for when he came out to Sancherib with his party, Gabriel shut the gate in the face of his party. And when Sancherib questioned him: "Where is thy party?" he answered: "They have rebelled and retracted." "Are you making sport of me!" Sancherib exclaimed, and they bored holes in his heels, tied them to the tails of their horses, and dragged his body over thorns.

And God said [further to him], put your hand into your breast (Shemot 4:6). They said to him, just as when the snake badmouthed I struck it with tzara'at, as it says "you shall be more cursed than all the beasts" (Bereishit 3:14), as it is said "a blemish of tzara'at" (Vayikra 13:51) [therefore, when you badmouth, I will strike you similarly]. Rabbi Elazar said, these coins tat are in it are tzara'at, and so you too are worthy of being struck with tzara'at. And why did he put it into his breast? Because it's the way of evil speech to be said in private. And so it says, "he who slanders his friend in secret, I will destroy" (Tehillim 101:5). There is no "I will destroy" [אַצְמִית atzmit]: rather, it is tzara'at [צָרַעַת], as it is said "[the land may not be sold] permanently" [לִצְמִתֻת litzmitut], and we translate it "permanently" [לַחֲלוּטִין lachlutin]. And we teach "there is no difference between a quarantined/doubtful metzora and a confirmed metzora" (Mishna Megilla 1:7). And he put his hand into his breast and brought it out, and behold his hand was afflicted with tzara'at as snow (Shemot 4:6) - he got his, since he badmouthed. Rabbi Yehoshua Dischinan, in the name of Rabbi Levi, said: from here you may learn that everyone who unjustly suspects their fellow of something is struck in their body. And They said, return your hand to your breast (ibid.) - for what sign would this be to Yisrael? Go and tell them, just as a metzora causes impurity, so too the Mitzriyim are making you impure. And just as it is purified, so too will the Holy Blessed One purify Yisrael, as it is written "And behold his hand was afflicted with tzara'at as snow (Shemot 4:6), and of healing it is written "And he brought it out from his breast and behold it had returned [to be] as his flesh" (Shemot 4:7). Our sages said in order not to provoke insult on the flesh of Moshe, thus the hand wasnot struck with tzara'at until he had brought it out from his flesh, but for healing, from within his breast it was healed. An alternative take: from here we learn that punishments wait for the righteous to come, but the attribute of good is swift to come. "And it will be, if they do not believe these two signs" (Shemot 4:9) - why did the Holy Blessed One give him three signs? Corresponding to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Ya'akov. "And take from the waters of the Y'or" (ibid.) - alludes to the fact that by means of something that was spoke to Yisra'el, the water will be in the future turned to blood, and he will be struck by their hands, as it is written "Listen, you rebels" (Bemidbar 20:10). And he struck the rock and it brought forth, as it says "Then he struck the rock and it oozed [וַיָּזוּבוּ vayazuvu] water" (Tehillim 78:20) - "oozing" always indicates blood, as it is said "And a woman who oozes an oozing [יָזוּב זוֹב, yazuv zov] of her blood" (Vayikra 15:25). And for this reason he struck the rock twice - initially it brought forth blood, and only eventually water. With the first two signs, you find that they returned to their original state, but with the blood it never returned to how it was, since he didn't want to forgive Moshe for the sin of the water. And what sign was this for Yisrael? He said to them, with this sign will the Mitzriyim be struck originally.

3) (And it also follows) a fortiori, viz.: If tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement, with zavim, whose tumah and taharah are determined by all men (and not only Cohanim), it certainly does not obtain before the pronouncement with negaim, whose tumah and taharah is determined only by a Cohein! — No, this (that tumah does not obtain before the pronouncement) may be so with zavim, who do not become tamei by accident (i.e., through some external cause, like eating, drinking, jumping and the like), as opposed to (those with) negaim, who do become tamei by accident (i.e., if the nega originates through a burn or the like). (We would think that) since this is so, they (negaim) would be tamei before the pronouncement. It is, therefore, written "if there shall be," from the pronouncement on.

3) See Chapter 2:6

3) "to all of the sight of the eyes of the Cohein": to include the inside (of the buttocks) — whence they ruled: A man is inspected as if he were hoeing (and bending) and as if he were picking olives (and lifting his arms). As if he were hoeing — for (examination of) the buttocks. As if he were picking olives — for (examination of) the arm-pits. A woman (is inspected) as if she were kneading flour (and bending) and as if she were nursing her babe. As if she were kneading flour for (examination of) the buttocks. As if she were nursing — (for examination of) the lower breast. As if she were weaving while standing — for (examination of) the right arm-pit. R. Yehudah says: And as if she were spinning flax for (examination of) the left (arm-pit). And just as this is the criterion for examination of the plague-spot, so is it the criterion for (the area) to be shaved in his (the leper's) cleansing.

3) ("And on the day there appears in it living flesh he shall be unclean.") What is the intent of "it"? Whence do you derive that if it blossomed in all of him, but not in the head, the beard, the boil, the burn, and the "rebellious" blister, and the head and the beard became bald, and the boil and the burn and the blister became scarred — I might think that he were tamei, all of the above now being regarded as "impeding" his complete whiteness), it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "it," the blossoming. If there appears in it (living flesh), he is tamei; but if the head and the beard became bald, and the boil and the burn and the blister (became scarred), he is not tamei (but tahor).

3) (Vayikra 13:17) ("And the Cohein shall see it, and, behold, the plague-spot has turned to white, then the Cohein shall declare the plague-spot clean; he is clean." What is the intent of this? I might think that limb tips that were revealed (by recession of the nega from them) and returned to be covered (by white) would be tahor only after the (complete) blossoming of a confirmed michyah in the beginning. Whence do I derive (that he is tahor) for return of the same at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after return of blossoming of confirmed white hair in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after return of blossoming of confirmed spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week; after exemption? (Whence do we derive that all of the above are tahor?) From "And the Cohein shall see it, and, behold, the plague-spot has turned to white … He is clean" — to include all (of the above).

3) "a white se'eth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah plain (i.e., without intermixture of red). "a reddish-white bahereth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. I might think that the se'eth confers tumah only plain (white) and the bahereth confers tumah only intermixed. Whence do I derive that what applies to se'eth (plain) applies to bahereth, and what applies to bahereth (intermixed) applies to se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:20) It is a plague-spot of leprosy" (connoting interchangeability).

3) "a white se'eth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah plain (i.e., without intermixture of red). "a reddish-white bahereth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. I might think that the se'eth confers tumah only plain (white) and the bahereth confers tumah only intermixed. Whence do I derive that what applies to se'eth (plain) applies to bahereth, and what applies to bahereth (intermixed) applies to se'eth? From (Vayikra 13:20) It is a plague-spot of leprosy" (connoting interchangeability).

3) (Vayikra 13:24) "a burn by fire": I might think that only a "rebellious" (i.e., unhealed) burn were intended. It is, therefore, written "and the healthy flesh of the burn." (If the latter alone were written,) I might think that it must form a scab; it is, therefore, written "a burn by fire." How is this to be reconciled? It healed and did not heal (i.e., it formed a peel and not a scab) And thus is it written below (Vayikra 13:28) "it is the peel of the burn" — until it forms a membrane, like a garlic peel.

3) (Vayikra 13:24) "a burn by fire": I might think that only a "rebellious" (i.e., unhealed) burn were intended. It is, therefore, written "and the healthy flesh of the burn." (If the latter alone were written,) I might think that it must form a scab; it is, therefore, written "a burn by fire." How is this to be reconciled? It healed and did not heal (i.e., it formed a peel and not a scab) And thus is it written below (Vayikra 13:28) "it is the peel of the burn" — until it forms a membrane, like a garlic peel.

3) This tells me (of his being tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in (both) his head and his beard. Whence do I derive (that he is also tamei) when he has (a plague-spot) in his head, but not in his beard or in his beard and not in his head? From "And a man or a woman — if there be in it a plague-spot, in the head or in the beard."

3) "If the hair in the plague-spot has turned white": From here they ruled: (If there were) two hairs, their roots ("in the plague-spot") black and their tops white, he is tahor; their roots white and their tops black, he is tamei. How large must the white be (to render him tamei)? R. Meir says: Any size. The sages say: The standard size (i.e., large enough for the scissors to cut). R. Meir says: Men should not think that they are judged by the whole hair, but if the root of the hair ("in the plague-spot") is white, he is tamei; and if it is not white, he is tahor.

3) R. Yehudah says: Wherever the stipulation of precedence (of nega to hair) must be made, it is made (explicitly, in the verse itself), but nethek, about which it is written (Vayikra 13:32) "and there is no yellow hair in it" (without any explicit stipulation of precedence), (nethek) confers tumah whether or not it precedes (the yellow hair).

3) R. Yehudah says: Wherever the stipulation of precedence (of nega to hair) must be made, it is made (explicitly, in the verse itself), but nethek, about which it is written (Vayikra 13:32) "and there is no yellow hair in it" (without any explicit stipulation of precedence), (nethek) confers tumah whether or not it precedes (the yellow hair).

3) "and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it": R. Yehudah says: It does not say "it (the nethek) did not turn the hair yellow in it," but "and there was no yellow hair in it," which implies that if there was yellow hair there (even) before the (advent of the) nethek, it is tamei. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It does not say: "There was no thin yellow hair in it," but "there was no yellow hair in it" — even a long one. "and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin": (its appearance is the determining factor) and not its (actual) substance.

3) I might think that every appearance of snow is tamei and that all other appearances are tahor. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "It is a bohak (brightness) … it is clean": It is clean, but everything above it (in brightness) is tamei.

3) — Or perhaps only if his head balds (without his beard balding) is he tahor, but if his beard balds, he is not tahor! It is, therefore, written "And a man," (the superfluous "and") including the beard.

3) I might think that every appearance of snow is tamei and that all other appearances are tahor. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "It is a bohak (brightness) … it is clean": It is clean, but everything above it (in brightness) is tamei.

3) (Vayikra 13:43) "And the Cohein shall see him, and, behold, a rising of the plague-spot, reddish-white, (is in his karachath or in his gabachath"): We are hereby taught that a rising confers tumah intermixed. And whence (is the same) to be derived for the other appearances? From (Vayikra 13:42) "a reddish-white plague-spot in his karachath or in his gabachath … as in the appearance of the leprosy of the skin of the flesh." Just as this [karachath] confers tumah intermixed, so the leprosy of the skin of the flesh confers tumah intermixed, and just as the skin of the flesh confers tumah plain, non-intermixed, this, too, confers tumah plain, non-intermixed. "the skin of the flesh": (which requires a quarantine of) two weeks.

3) (Vayikra 13:43) "And the Cohein shall see him, and, behold, a rising of the plague-spot, reddish-white, (is in his karachath or in his gabachath"): We are hereby taught that a rising confers tumah intermixed. And whence (is the same) to be derived for the other appearances? From (Vayikra 13:42) "a reddish-white plague-spot in his karachath or in his gabachath … as in the appearance of the leprosy of the skin of the flesh." Just as this [karachath] confers tumah intermixed, so the leprosy of the skin of the flesh confers tumah intermixed, and just as the skin of the flesh confers tumah plain, non-intermixed, this, too, confers tumah plain, non-intermixed. "the skin of the flesh": (which requires a quarantine of) two weeks.

3) Or: Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (for "declaration") nethakim (of the previous verses), where the plague-spot is in one's head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "He is unclean; the Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."

3) I might think that they are subject to tumah whether dyed or not dyed; it is, therefore, written: "in a garment of wool or in a garment of flax" — Just as flax is in its original state (i.e., it is not the practice to dye flax, so, (for plague-spot uncleanliness we require) wool in its original state.

3) "in the garment": and not in the nap. (If the plague-spot appears in the nap, it is tamei, but the garment is not.) "in the garment or in the skin, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin, (it is a plague-spot of leprosy"): What is the intent of this? I might think that "garment" indicates one that is appropriate for both a rich man and a pauper. Whence do I derive (as subject to tumah) one that is appropriate for a rich man but not for a pauper; for a pauper but not for a rich man, neither for a rich man nor for a pauper? From (the categorical) "it is a plague-spot of leprosy." "and it shall be shown to the Cohein": to include all (of the above instances).

3) From here they ruled: Plague-spots are not inspected in the early morning or at twilight or inside the house or on a cloudy day, for then what is dull appears bright; and not at mid-day, for then what is bright appears dull. When are they inspected? On the third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth hours. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: On the fourth, fifth, eighth, and ninth hours. R. Yossi says: On the fourth, fifth, ninth, and tenth hours, but I accept the words of the great one (R. Yehudah).

3) I would then exclude appendages of silk and of gold, whose kind (silk and gold) are not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness, but I would not exclude (wool) of purple and crimson, whose kind, (wool) is subject to plague-spot uncleanliness. It is, therefore, written "in which the plague-spot will be found," i.e., which is subject to plague-spot (uncleanliness — to exclude dyed wool ["purple and crimson" above], which is not subject to plague-spot uncleanliness).

3) We learned about what dimmed at the end of the second week to a second-degree appearance (see Chapter 15:10) that he tears it out. And whence is it derived that what dims at the end of the first week to a second-degree appearance and not to a third degree that he washes it (and quarantines it again as it if had remained in its original appearance? It is written here "plague-spot" ("and, behold, the plague-spot became dim") and there (Vayikra 13 verse 54), "plague-spot" ("Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot"). Just as with "plague-spot" here — it dimmed to the second degree and not to the third degree, so with "plague-spot" there — it dimmed to the second degree but not to the third degree.

3) If they called the Cohein to see one plague-spot, and there erupted in it another plague-spot (before he quarantined or confirmed the first), whence is it derived that he examines it? From "and the Cohein shall see, and, behold (connoting something novel) a se'eth." "and it has turned the hair white": (only if) it has turned the hair white), and not a neighboring spot. How so? If one had a bahereth the size of a garis with white hair in it, and the bahereth disappeared and left the white hair in its place, and the bahereth returned —

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

Another interpretation (of Numb. 19:2): THIS IS THE STATUTE OF THE TORAH. This text is related (to Job 14:4): WHO CAN PRODUCE SOMETHING CLEAN OUT OF SOMETHING UNCLEAN? IS IT NOT <THE HOLY> ONE?⁴²English translations usually translate these last four words as NO ONE. <Who>, for example, <produced> Abraham out of Terah, Hezekiah out of Ahaz, Josiah out of Amon, Mordecai out of Shimei, Israel out of the nations of the world, [the world to come out of this world].⁴³Tanh., Numb. 6:3; Numb. R. 19:1; PRK, 4:1. So who did so? Who commanded so? And who decreed so? Was it not one being? Was it not the One Unequaled in the World (i.e., the Holy One)? We have learned elsewhere [(in Neg. 8:2):⁴⁴Cf. ibid. 8:3, 6-9. IF ONE HAS A BRIGHT SPOT THE SIZE OF A BEAN, he is unclean …⁴⁵The traditional Mishnah text here does not specifically declare such a one unclean, although the uncleanness may be inferred, especially when the passage is read in connection with Lev. 13:2-3.; IF IT HAS BURST OUT ALL OVER HIM, HE IS CLEAN. Who did so? Who decreed so? Who commanded so? Was it not the One Unequaled in the World? We have learned elsewhere] (in Hul. 4:3): IN THE CASE OF THE WOMAN WHOSE FETUS DIED WITHIN HER BELLY, IF {SHE} [A MIDWIFE] INSERTED HER HAND <INTO THE WOMB> AND TOUCHED IT, THE MIDWIFE IS UNCLEAN FOR SEVEN DAYS, BUT THE WOMAN REMAINS CLEAN UNTIL THE FETUS COMES FORTH. And so it is that while the dead person is in the house, the house is clean; when he comes forth from it, he makes it unclean. Who did this? Was it not the One Unequaled in the World? We have learned elsewhere (in Parah 4:4; Hul. 29b): ALL WHO ARE OCCUPIED WITH THE <RITE OF THE RED> COW FROM BEGINNING TO END RENDER <THEIR> CLOTHES UNCLEAN, while the <cow> herself makes <what is unclean> clean. Thus the Holy One has said: I have enacted a statute for you; I have issued a decree! So you are not authorized to transgress against my decree.

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

(Lev. 14:2:) “This shall be the law of the leper.” Let our master instruct us: For how many things does leprosy come? Thus have our masters taught: The affliction comes [upon one] for eleven things:²³Cf. Numb. R. 7:5; Lev. 17:3; ‘Arakh. 16a. (1) For idolatry, (2) for desecration of the name [of God], (3) for unchastity, (4) for theft, (5) for slander, (6) for false witness, (7) upon²⁴In this passage “for” and “upon” translate the same Hebrew word (‘al). the judge who perverts justice, (8) for swearing in vain, (9) upon one who enters a domain which is not his, (10) upon one who thinks false thoughts, and (11) upon one who instigates quarrels among brothers. And some also say, “for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly).” How is it shown [that leprosy comes] for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua')”; and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45), “his head shall be unkempt (parua').” And how is it shown [that leprosy comes] for cursing the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8), “Choose a man ('ish) for yourselves.” Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, blessed be He, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3), “The Lord is a man ('ish) of war.” It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) “This day [the Lord] will deliver (rt.: sgr) you.” Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5), “the priest shall isolate (rt.: sgr) him.” And how is it shown for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:[16-]17), “[Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck and roving eyes…]. Therefore the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps [of the daughters of Zion].”²⁵Vs. 17 differs here from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD). Now sores (sph) can only be leprosy, as stated (in Lev. 14:56), “For a swelling and for a sore (rt.: sph) and for a bright spot.” How is it shown for theft? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4), “I have sent it (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) forth, says the Lord of hosts; and it shall come unto the house of the thief.” Hence, for theft. How is it shown for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4, cont.), “and unto the house of the one who swears falsely in My name; and it shall lodge within his house; and it shall consume it, [even] with its timbers and stones.” What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? Rabbi says, “This is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy (in Lev. 14:45), ‘And he shall break down the house with its timbers and stones.’” And how is it shown for slander? From Miriam [of whom] it is written (in Numb. 12:10), “so when Aaron turned unto Miriam, there she was, stricken with leprosy.” It is written (in Lev. 14:1), “This shall be the law of the leper (hametsora'),” [i.e.] the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra'). And how is it shown for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified falsely and said (in Exod. 32:4), “These are your gods, O Israel,” they were struck with leprosy, as stated, “Instruct the Israelites to remove from the camp….” It also states (Exodus 32:25), “Now Moses saw that the people were riotous (parua').”²⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘). And [how is it shown] for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24), “And it shall be that as a tongue of fire consumes straw, and as chaff sinks down in a flame, their root shall be like the rot, and their blossom shall rise up like the dust; for they have rejected the law of the Lord of hosts.” Their blossom (prh) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12), “If the leprosy should blossom out widely (rt.: prh).” And how is it shown for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, who entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:19), “then leprosy appeared on his forehead.” And how is it shown for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? From Pharaoh, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), “Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh,” because he had taken Sarah from Abraham. And [how is it shown] for the evil eye (i.e., for being miserly)? R. Isaac said, “When someone's eye is too evil (i.e., when someone is too miserly) to lend out his possessions. When someone comes and says to him, ‘Lend me your scythe, lend me your ax, or any object,’ he says to him, ‘Cursed is the one who has a scythe, cursed is the one has an axe’ (meaning, ‘I do not have one’). What does the Holy One, blessed be He, do?²⁷Cf. Yoma 11b. He afflicts [his house] with leprosy. When he comes to the priest and says to him, ‘Something like a plague has appeared in the house belonging to me,’ he commands (according to Lev. 14:45), ‘Let him break down the house with its timbers and stones.’ Then everybody will see his implements, when they lug them and bring them outside. So they publicize²⁸Mepharsemin, from PRSM, a verb related to the Greek, parresiazesthai (“to speak freely”). his implements, and they all say, ‘Did he not say, “I do not have a scythe; I do not have an ax?” See, he does have such and such an object, but he did not want to lend it.’ So his eye is evil (i.e., he is miserly), to lend.” (Leviticus 14:37:) “And [the priest] says, ‘[The walls are] deeply colored (shkarurot).’” Do not read it [such], but rather read it as he brought down curses (shaka arurot). As he said, “Cursed,” and he brought down his house. And everyone saw his curses, as stated (in Job 20:28), “The produce of his house shall depart, poured out in the day of His wrath.” [Moreover,] there are also some who say, [leprosy] also [comes] for haughtiness. How is it shown? From Naaman, as stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram […] a valiant warrior, was a leper,” because he was haughty. [Leprosy] also [comes] upon the one who says something against his colleague that is not true about him. Thus you find it so in the case of Moses our master, when he said (in Exod. 4:1), “But [surely] they shall not believe me.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, “They are believers [and] children of believers”: [Believers] (in Exod. 4:31), “And the people believed”; the children of believers, as stated (in Gen. 15:6), “And he (Abram) believed in the Lord.” However, it is necessary [for you] to be afflicted, since the one who suspects the innocent is afflicted in his body. It is so stated (in Exod. 4:6), “Then [the Lord…] said, ‘Please put your hand in your bosom’; so he put his hand in his bosom, and when he withdrew it, behold, it was leprous as snow.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, “Look at the difference between you and the peoples of the world. When they sin, I afflict them first in their bodies and after that in their houses, as stated (in Gen. 12:17), ‘Then the Lord afflicted Pharaoh with great plagues,’ and afterwards, ‘and his house.’ But if you sin, I afflict your houses first.” Where is it shown? From what they read on the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” (Lev. 14:34:) “And I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted? It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:[32-]34), “[He turns….] A fruitful land into a salt marsh because of the evil [of those who dwell in it].” Why? Because of the evil [of the people]. And so does it state (Isaiah 26:9), “with Your judgements upon the earth, so will those that dwell in the inhabitation learn justice.” Why do punishments come upon the world? For the creatures, so that they would look, consider, and say, “Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted.” So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look [at them] and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, intended to exile them at once before the [other] nations. But He said, “If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations.” What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the wicked upon all the [other] nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14), “My hand (the hand of Sennacherib) has found the wealth of the peoples like a nest.” It is also written (in vs. 13), “and I (Sennacherib) have removed the borders of peoples.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear My judgment.” It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6), “I have rooted out the nations; their corner towers are desolate.” And after it is written (in vs. 7), “I said, ‘Surely you will fear Me, they will learn rebuke!’” When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One, blessed be He, warns them and [first] afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” For him to repent is preferable; but if not, he is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2), “When any man has a discharge issuing from his flesh….” Hence, the stones are struck first. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40), “When someone's head becomes hairless [so that he is bald, he is clean]”; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18), “And when one has boils on the skin of his flesh and is healed.”²⁹The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. Boils is [worse] than balding of the head. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges: swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.³⁰Numb. R. 14:4. Scripture has said (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes for the back of fools.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Before I created the human, I prepared all these for him.” [The situation] is comparable to an evil slave who was about to be sold. When his master went to buy him, he knew that he was a bad salve. [So] he took along chains and whips so that if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him, “Did you not know that I was a bad slave? Why did you buy me?” He said to him, “Because I knew that you are difficult, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them.” So too the Holy One, blessed be He [and] blessed be His name forever, before He created the human one, He prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) He knows that³¹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” “the instinct of one's heart is evil from his youth.” He therefore prepared all these for him, so that if he rebelled, He would subdue him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29), “Judgments are ready for scoffers; and stripes (mahalumot) for the back of fools.” What are mahalumot? Mahah lamoot (strike to death). Warn him first; it is preferable if he repents. But if not, strike his body. How is it shown? From that which we read about the matter (in Lev. 14:34), “and I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.”

4) But perhaps the meaning of (Vayikra 13:11) "he shall not quarantine him for he is tamei" is that a Cohein who is tamei shall not quarantine him, but a confirmed leper is quarantined (for a new eruption)! It is, therefore, written "for he is tamei." We are speaking of the inspected and not of the inspector.

4) Variantly: "to all of the sight of the eyes of the Cohein": to exclude (from examination) a Cohein whose sight has darkened — whence they ruled: A Cohein who was blind in one eye or whose sight has dimmed is not to inspect plague-spots.

4) Living flesh that returns is tamei. White hair that returns is not tamei (i.e., If after a complete blossoming he was declared clean, and white hair appeared in him, he is not tamei, it being written "living flesh," and not "white hair.") R. Yehoshua ruled that it is tamei, saying: White hair is a sign of tumah and michyah is a sign of tumah. Just as michyah that returns is tamei, so white hair that returns is tamei. R. Akiva countered: When is the power of white hair to confer tumah greater? When it has served to confirm (leprosy) or when it has not served to confirm? (Certainly,) when it has served to confirm. Now, if when it has served to confirm, it still does not impede the blossoming (to confer tumah), then, when it has not served to confirm (but has just appeared after the blossoming) how much more so does it not impede the blossoming! And, furthermore, it is written "living flesh." Living flesh that returns confers tumah; white hair that returns does not confer tumah.

4) I might think that one who came all white in the beginning (to be inspected) is tahor; it is, therefore, written "he is clean," but one who comes all white in the beginning is not tahor but tamei.

4) (Vayikra 13:2) ("A man, if there be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it shall be in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:3) "and hair in the plague-spot had turned white," I would think that this denotes only a site where white hair can grow. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even a site where white hair cannot grow (like the palm of the hand)? From (the redundant) "in the skin of his flesh." "se'eth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "se'eth." "bahereth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "bahereth." "sapachath": This is an adjunct to (i.e., a lesser form of) se'eth, and its appearance is of lesser depth than that of bahereth. What is signified by "se'eth"? A "rising," as the appearance of a shadow, which seems higher than that of the sun. What is signified by (Vayikra 13:3) "deeper"? As the appearance of the sun, which seems deeper than that of the shadow. What is signified by "sapachath"? "adjunct," as it is written (I Samuel 2:36) "Join me ('sefacheini'), I pray you, to one of the priests' offices." "and it shall be": (We are hereby taught [by its being written "and it shall be" rather than "and they (se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth) shall be"]) that they combine with each other for purposes of negation (of leprosy), confirmation, and quarantine. "in the skin of his flesh": in (i.e., relative to) the skin of the flesh of the observed. In this connection it was stated: A very bright spot seems dull in a (light-complected) German, and a dull spot in an Ethiopian seems bright.

4) (Vayikra 13:20) "its appearance is lower": This tells me (that it is tamei) only if its appearance is lower. Whence do I derive for inclusion (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher? From (Vayikra 13:21) "and it is not lower than the skin," (which indicates that "lower than the skin" is not a categorical requirement for tumah). "it has blossomed in the boil": but not in the skin of the flesh (outside of the boil). I might think that (to become tamei) it does not spread in the skin of the flesh, but it does spread in the skin of the burn (near the boil); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:23) "And if in its place the bahereth stands — (if) it has not spread." In its place (in the boil) it spreads, (to become tamei); it does not spread in the skin of the flesh or in the skin of the burn.

4) (Vayikra 13:20) "its appearance is lower": This tells me (that it is tamei) only if its appearance is lower. Whence do I derive for inclusion (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher? From (Vayikra 13:21) "and it is not lower than the skin," (which indicates that "lower than the skin" is not a categorical requirement for tumah). "it has blossomed in the boil": but not in the skin of the flesh (outside of the boil). I might think that (to become tamei) it does not spread in the skin of the flesh, but it does spread in the skin of the burn (near the boil); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:23) "And if in its place the bahereth stands — (if) it has not spread." In its place (in the boil) it spreads, (to become tamei); it does not spread in the skin of the flesh or in the skin of the burn.

4) (Vayikra 13:20) "its appearance is lower": This tells me (that it is tamei) only if its appearance is lower. Whence do I derive for inclusion (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher? From (Vayikra 13:21) "and it is not lower than the skin," (which indicates that "lower than the skin" is not a categorical requirement for tumah). "it has blossomed in the boil": but not in the skin of the flesh (outside of the boil). I might think that (to become tamei) it does not spread in the skin of the flesh, but it does spread in the skin of the burn (near the boil); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:23) "And if in its place the bahereth stands — (if) it has not spread." In its place (in the boil) it spreads, (to become tamei); it does not spread in the skin of the flesh or in the skin of the burn.

4) ("a burn by fire") This tells me only of his being burned by fire. Whence do I derive the same for (his being burned by) a coal, ashes, boiling lime, boiling gypsum, and anything else that comes from a flame? From "burn" ("a burn by fire") - "burn ("flesh of the burn") for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn (which was sustained) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of) a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn which was sustained by) a proselyte before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a burn sustained by) a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a burn sustained by a minor) before he was born? From "burn" - "burn," for (extension of) inclusion. This tells me only of a burn which has room to spread. Whence do I derive the same for a burn which does not have room to spread? From "if there be in its skin" — even in all of it. This tells me only of part-burn, part-bahereth; part-burn, all bahereth; part-bahereth, all burn. Whence do I derive the same for all burn, all bahereth? From "in its skin" - "in its skin," for (extension of) inclusion.

4) "its appearance is deeper than the skin": This tells me (that he is tamei) only if its appearance is deeper. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in tumah an appearance which is) level or elevated? From (Vayikra 13:31): "and its appearance is not deeper than the skin." Why, then, is it written "and its appearance is deeper? I might think that if a man made a nethek it is tamei; it is, therefore, written "and its appearance is deeper" — Just as "its appearance is deeper" indicates by the hands of Heaven, here, too, (in connection with the "making" of the nethek), "by the hands of Heaven" is indicated.

4) (Vayikra 13:2) ("A man, if there be in the skin of his flesh se'eth or sapachath or bahereth, and it shall be in the skin of his flesh a plague-spot of leprosy, then he shall be brought to Aaron the Cohein or to one of his sons, the Cohanim.") "in the skin of his flesh": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:3) "and hair in the plague-spot had turned white," I would think that this denotes only a site where white hair can grow. Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even a site where white hair cannot grow (like the palm of the hand)? From (the redundant) "in the skin of his flesh." "se'eth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "se'eth." "bahereth": This is (the distinct plague-spot known as) "bahereth." "sapachath": This is an adjunct to (i.e., a lesser form of) se'eth, and its appearance is of lesser depth than that of bahereth. What is signified by "se'eth"? A "rising," as the appearance of a shadow, which seems higher than that of the sun. What is signified by (Vayikra 13:3) "deeper"? As the appearance of the sun, which seems deeper than that of the shadow. What is signified by "sapachath"? "adjunct," as it is written (I Samuel 2:36) "Join me ('sefacheini'), I pray you, to one of the priests' offices." "and it shall be": (We are hereby taught [by its being written "and it shall be" rather than "and they (se'eth, sapachath, and bahereth) shall be"]) that they combine with each other for purposes of negation (of leprosy), confirmation, and quarantine. "in the skin of his flesh": in (i.e., relative to) the skin of the flesh of the observed. In this connection it was stated: A very bright spot seems dull in a (light-complected) German, and a dull spot in an Ethiopian seems bright.

4) "has turned white": and not red, and not green, and not black. I would exclude all of these, but not yellow. And I would derive it a fortiori, viz.: If white hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a netek (a scall, viz. 13:30), is a sign of tumah in a nega, then yellow hair, which is a sign of tumah in a netek (viz. 32), how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nega! It is, therefore, written: "white hair," and not yellow.

4) "its appearance is deeper than the skin": This tells me (that he is tamei) only if its appearance is deeper. Whence do I derive for inclusion (in tumah an appearance which is) level or elevated? From (Vayikra 13:31): "and its appearance is not deeper than the skin." Why, then, is it written "and its appearance is deeper? I might think that if a man made a nethek it is tamei; it is, therefore, written "and its appearance is deeper" — Just as "its appearance is deeper" indicates by the hands of Heaven, here, too, (in connection with the "making" of the nethek), "by the hands of Heaven" is indicated.

4) Why, then, is it written the nega of the nethek? Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as nega does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis, so nethek does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis. And by the repetition of "the nega of the nethek" (Vayikra 13:32), nega is being likened to nethek. Just as there is no "spreading" into a nethek, so there is no "spreading" into a nega. (If there were a michyah in the midst of a bahereth and the bahereth spread into it, it is not called a "spreading" [for purposes of tumah]).

4) Why, then, is it written the nega of the nethek? Nethek is being likened to nega. Just as nega does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis, so nethek does not (confer tumah) with less than a garis. And by the repetition of "the nega of the nethek" (Vayikra 13:32), nega is being likened to nethek. Just as there is no "spreading" into a nethek, so there is no "spreading" into a nega. (If there were a michyah in the midst of a bahereth and the bahereth spread into it, it is not called a "spreading" [for purposes of tumah]).

4) (Vayikra 13:33) ("Then he shall be shaved, but the nethek he shall not shave. And the Cohein shall quarantine the nethek a second seven days.") "Then he shall be shaved": by any man (and not necessarily a Cohein). Because we find the last shaving (on the day of his cleansing [Vayikra 14:9] to be by a Cohein, I might think that this, too, must be by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any man.

4) — But perhaps the thrust of "man" is to exclude a woman and a minor (and not to include a beard). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "he is a leper," ("he" in that context being superfluous,) to include women and minors). Why, then, is it written "and a man"? To include the beard. If so, why is it written "his head" (and not also "his beard")? His head is clean, (and non-balding of his beard is no deterrent to this.) These are the words of R. Yehudah.

4) From here they ruled: The appearances of negaim are two, which are four: Bahereth is bright as snow. Second to it (in brightness) is the plaster of the Temple (walls). Se'eth is (bright) as the membrane of an egg. Second to it is (the brightness of) white wool. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: Se'eth is (bright) as wool. Second to it is the membrane of an egg.

4) (Why is this Scriptural analogy [hekesh] needed?) Does it not follow by induction (mah matzinu)?, viz.: Tumah is conferred here (in the instance of karachath), and tumah is conferred in (the instance of) the skin of the flesh. Just as the skin of the flesh, two weeks, here, too, two weeks.

4) — But perhaps the thrust of "man" is to exclude a woman and a minor (and not to include a beard). It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "he is a leper," ("he" in that context being superfluous,) to include women and minors). Why, then, is it written "and a man"? To include the beard. If so, why is it written "his head" (and not also "his beard")? His head is clean, (and non-balding of his beard is no deterrent to this.) These are the words of R. Yehudah.

4) I might think that the tumah of the others who are tamei (e.g., those who are tamei with dead-body uncleanliness or with sheretz uncleanliness) would obtain only with the declaration of the Cohein; it is, therefore, written "He (is tamei") (to exclude the others. I would then exclude the others who are tamei, whose tumah does not stem from their bodies, but I would not exclude zav or zavah (those with a genital emission), whose tumah stems from their bodies. It is, therefore, written (the double redundancy) "He (is tamei"); the Cohein shall declare him (unclean, unclean.") The tumah of this one is by (the declaration of) the Cohein, and not the tumah of the others who are tamei.

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

4) "it is a plague-spot of leprosy": (making it subject to tumah if it is) the size of a garis. (Why is a special verse needed for this? There is (leprosy) tumah here, and there is (leprosy) tumah in skin of the flesh. Just as there, the (minimum) size is a garis, here, too, it is a garis.

4) "and if the plague-spot appears as it did before": For if the nega was bright and it dimmed, (it is as if it was never bright); if it was dim and it brightened, it is as if it never dimmed (and he must be quarantined again, for it is regarded as appearing as it did before [unless it changes to the extent that it leaves the category of "the four appearances," viz. Section 2:4]). "and the plague-spot has not spread": For if it contracted and it spread, (it is as if it never contracted); and if it spread and contracted, it is as if it never spread. "then the Cohein shall quarantine for a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is part of the count, both for what precedes (i.e., it is the last of the first seven) and for what follows (i.e., it is the first of the second seven). (Vayikra 13:6) ("And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again. If the plague-spot is dim, and the plague-spot has not spread on the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath (a kind of clean plague-spot). And he shall wash his clothes and he is clean.") "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died, a different Cohein sees him.

4) (Vayikra 13:53) "And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread in the garment, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin": This refers to the stationariness (omed) of the plague-spot, (and not to the non-appearance of a different plague-spot). (Vayikra 13:54) ("Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine it a second seven days.") "Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash": the command, by the Cohein; the washing, by any man.

4) (Vayikra 13:53) "And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread in the garment, or in the warp or in the woof, or in any article of skin": This refers to the stationariness (omed) of the plague-spot, (and not to the non-appearance of a different plague-spot). (Vayikra 13:54) ("Then the Cohein shall command, and they shall wash what contains the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine it a second seven days.") "Then the Cohein shall command and they shall wash": the command, by the Cohein; the washing, by any man.

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

4) "and if the plague-spot appears as it did before": For if the nega was bright and it dimmed, (it is as if it was never bright); if it was dim and it brightened, it is as if it never dimmed (and he must be quarantined again, for it is regarded as appearing as it did before [unless it changes to the extent that it leaves the category of "the four appearances," viz. Section 2:4]). "and the plague-spot has not spread": For if it contracted and it spread, (it is as if it never contracted); and if it spread and contracted, it is as if it never spread. "then the Cohein shall quarantine for a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is part of the count, both for what precedes (i.e., it is the last of the first seven) and for what follows (i.e., it is the first of the second seven). (Vayikra 13:6) ("And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again. If the plague-spot is dim, and the plague-spot has not spread on the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath (a kind of clean plague-spot). And he shall wash his clothes and he is clean.") "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day again": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died, a different Cohein sees him.

4) this is "deposited hair," which Akavya b. Mehalalel rules tamei and the sages, tahor. R. Akiva said: I concede that in this instance he is tahor. What is "deposited hair" (which confers tumah, as per Akavya)? If one had a bahereth with two hairs in it, and a half-garis disappeared and left white hair in the place of the bahereth, and then it returned. They said to him: Just as they (the sages) nullified the words of Akavya, so, your words do not stand.

5) (Vayikra 13:12) ("And if the leprosy blossom in the skin, and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague-spot, from his head until his feet, to all the sight of the eyes of the Cohein") "blossom": This tells me only of its blossoming in all of him at once. Whence do I derive the same for its blossoming little by little? From (lit.) "if there blossom, blossom" (— in any manner.)

5) (Vayikra 13:13) ("And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the leprosy has covered all of his flesh, then he shall declare the plague-spot clean; all of it has turned white — it is clean.") "And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, the leprosy has covered": What is the intent of this? I might think that the blossoming (in all of his flesh) renders him clean only in a se'eth. Whence is the same derived for the other (three) appearances? From "and the leprosy has covered." "all of his flesh": to include in between the fingers of his hands and his feet. Variantly: What is the intent of "all of his flesh"? Whence do you derive that if it blossomed in all of him but not in a half-lentil size near the head, the beard, the boil, the burn and the blister, and then it returned to the head and the beard, and they became bald — the boil and the burn and the blister, and they became scarred — I might think that he would be tahor. It is, therefore, written "all of his flesh" — it must blossom in all of him (for him to be tahor).

5) Living flesh that returns confers tumah; bohak (white scurf) that returns (i.e., that appears after complete blossoming has rendered him tahor) does not confer tumah. Should it not follow (that it does confer tumah), viz.: Bohak impedes (blossoming) and michyah impedes. Just as returning michyah impedes, so should returning bohak impede. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written "living flesh." Returning living flesh confers tumah; returning bohak does not confer tumah.

5) (Vayikra 13:18) ("And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed") "a boil": (If only "a boil" were written), I would think that a "rebellious" (active one) were intended; it is, therefore, written "and it be healed." If "and it be healed," I would think that it must have formed a scab; it is, therefore, written "boil." How is this to be reconciled? It has healed and not healed. (i.e., it has formed a peel but not a scab.) And thus is it stated below (Vayikra 13:23) "it is the peel of the boil," forming a membrane similar to a garlic peel.

5) R. Yishmael says: The children of Israel ("may I be an atonement for them") are like the eshkeroa (the box-tree), neither black nor white but intermediate. R. Akiva says: The painters have dyes by which they paint figures that are black, white, or intermediate. (In the inspection of a plague-spot) the intermediate dye is brought and placed around the outside (of the plague-spot) and gives the appearance of "intermediate." R. Yehudah says: One verse (I Samuel 2:2) states "in the skin of his flesh" and another (I Samuel 2:3) "in the skin of the flesh." We are hereby taught that plague-spots are inspected with leniency and not with stringency. The German is inspected relative to his flesh, for leniency — thus, in the skin of his flesh," and the Ethiopian, through the intermediate (dye), for leniency — thus, "in the skin of the flesh." And the sages say: Both (are inspected) through the intermediate (dye).

5) (Vayikra 13:21) "And if the Cohein see it" — all in one sighting. "and, behold, there is no white hair in it" — not in it (the boil), but not in a strand projecting from it (i.e., if there were white hair in the strand, it is tahor). I might think (that the strand was not considered part of the boil) even if there were in it the breadth of two hairs; it is, therefore, written ([Vayikra 13:26] in respect to a burn) "and, behold, there is not in the bahereth white hair" (connoting that any significant projection [i.e., the breadth of two hairs] is considered part of the bahereth).

5) (Vayikra 13:18) ("And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed") "a boil": (If only "a boil" were written), I would think that a "rebellious" (active one) were intended; it is, therefore, written "and it be healed." If "and it be healed," I would think that it must have formed a scab; it is, therefore, written "boil." How is this to be reconciled? It has healed and not healed. (i.e., it has formed a peel but not a scab.) And thus is it stated below (Vayikra 13:23) "it is the peel of the boil," forming a membrane similar to a garlic peel.

5) The variation of snow (in a nega) is like wine mixed with snow. The variation of plaster is like blood mixed with milk. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "adamdam" (reddish) in both (viz. Vayikra 13:24) is like wine mixed with water; but that of snow is more intense, and that of plaster, duller.

5) (Vayikra 13:24) "a reddish-white bahereth": We are hereby taught that it confers tumah intermixed. And whence is it derived that it confers tumah plain (white)? From (Vayikra 13:24) "white." Whence is it derived that the other appearances are included? From "or white."

5) (Vayikra 13:21) "And if the Cohein see it" — all in one sighting. "and, behold, there is no white hair in it" — not in it (the boil), but not in a strand projecting from it (i.e., if there were white hair in the strand, it is tahor). I might think (that the strand was not considered part of the boil) even if there were in it the breadth of two hairs; it is, therefore, written ([Vayikra 13:26] in respect to a burn) "and, behold, there is not in the bahereth white hair" (connoting that any significant projection [i.e., the breadth of two hairs] is considered part of the bahereth).

5) "and there is in it thin yellow hair": to include (for tumah) what is (rooted) in it and lies outside of it; to exclude what is (rooted) outside of it and lies within it. "and … hair": the minimum of "hair," two hairs. "yellow": not green, not red, and not black. I would exclude all but not white. And it would follow, viz.: If yellow hair, which is not a sign of tumah in a nega, is a sign of tumah in a nethek, then white hair, which is a sign of tumah in a nega, how much more so should it be a sign of tumah in a nethek! It is, therefore, written "yellow" — yellow and not white. And what (shade) is it similar to? To that of gold.

5) "and the appearance … is deeper": but in actuality it is not deeper. "the appearance of the plague-spot is deep": but not the appearance of the white hair. "the appearance of the plague-spot": to include a fourth appearance (viz. Chapter 1:4). "it is a plague-spot of leprosy": There is no fifth appearance.

5) ("and there is no black hair in it") "hair": the minimum of "hair," two hairs. "black": This tells me only of black. Whence do I derive for inclusion green and red? From "and … hair." If so, why is it written "black"? Black "rescues" (from tumah if it appears before the nethek) and yellow does not "rescue" (from tumah if it appears before the nethek.)

5) "Then he shall be shaved": by any man. Because we find the last shaving to be by a razor. I might think that this, too, must be by a razor; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any instrument.

5) R. Shimon says: The (non-baldness of) the beard does prevent the (baldness of the) head (from being tahor), and this follows a fortiori, viz.: If skin of the face and skin of the flesh, which are separated by something else (the beard) prevent each other, (see above), how much more so should head and beard, which are not separated by anything prevent each other! Variantly: Just as we find that anything which is susceptible of the nega of leprosy (and does not sustain that nega) prevents (the attribution to the leper of) "the blossoming of the bahereth (in the whole") — so, all that is susceptible of tumah through the nega of nethek (e.g., the beard in our instance — if it does not sustain the nethek) prevents (the attribution to the leper of) "the blossoming of the nethek" ( — in our instance, in the head).

5) The variation of snow (in a nega) is like wine mixed with snow. The variation of plaster is like blood mixed with milk. These are the words of R. Yishmael. R. Akiva says: "adamdam" (reddish) in both (viz. Vayikra 13:24) is like wine mixed with water; but that of snow is more intense, and that of plaster, duller.

5) Or, perhaps go in this direction: Tumah is conferred here, and tumah is conferred in (the instance of) boil or burn. Just as boil or burn, one week, here, too, one week.

5) (Vayikra 13:45) ("And the leper in which the plague-spot is found, his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long, and his upper lip shall be covered, and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.") "And the leper": Even if he is the high-priest. Because it is written (of the high-priest, Vayikra 21:10) "His hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend," I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted (with leprosy), and how will I satisfy "His clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long? With others, aside from the high-priest; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) "in which the plague-spot is found" — even if he be the high-priest.

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

5) But perhaps go in this direction: There is tumah here and there is tumah in houses. Just as there, the (minimum) size is two garisim, here, too, it is two garisim.

5) "If the plague-spot is dim": I might think below (the brightness of) the four appearances; it is, therefore, written "the plague-spot," i.e., it is still a plague-spot. If "the plague-spot" (alone were written), I might think, as its (original) appearance. It is, therefore, written "and, behold, it is dim." How so? It is dimmer than its original appearance, but not below (all of) the four appearances (and even so he is declared tahor).

5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written "blight leprosy" (here) - "blight leprosy" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.

5) Now if we are stringent with garments, where if the plague-spot remains the same at the end of two weeks, the garment is burned, should we be stringent with houses, where if the plague-spot remains the same after two weeks the house is not razed! It is, therefore, written "blight leprosy" (here) - "blight leprosy" (Vayikra 13:5), in respect to garments) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as with garments, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading, so with houses, a returning plague-spot confers tumah even without spreading.

5) "and they shall wash … the plague-spot": I might think the plague-spot alone; it is, therefore, written "what contains the plague-spot." How so? Some of the adjoining material is washed with it.

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

5) "and it has turned (the hair white"): All of it (the plague-spot) has turned (the hair white), and not part of it. How so? A bahereth of half a garis and in it two (white) hairs (generated by this bahereth.) (Even if) another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it another (white) hair, the plague-spot is to be quarantined (and not confirmed, the hairs not combining (for confirmation). For the first hairs are considered non-existent, only part of a plague-spot having generated them).

(Lev. 13:2:) “When anyone has [on the skin of his flesh a swelling or a sore or a bright spot].” This text is related (to Job 38:25), “Who split open a channel for the flow (shtp) and a path to move the sounds?” R. Joshua of SIkhnin said in the name of R. Levi, “In Arabia they call the hair (s'r) a flood (shtp'). Thus¹⁷I.e., interpreting Job 38:25 to mean, WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE HAIR? for each and every hair that a person has, the Holy One, blessed be He, has created its own separate follicle (literally, well).”¹⁸Cf. Lev. R. 15:3; BB 16a. Because Job uttered a complaint and said, (in Job 9:17), “’For He crushes me with a tempest (rt.: s'r)¹⁹The Targum and Peshitta both read, FOR A HAIR. and multiplies my wounds for no reason,’ [i.e.] for no reason He has brought all these afflictions upon me.” Elihu said to him (in Job 34:10), “Heaven forbid! May wickedness be far from God and injustice from the Almighty.” Rather (in vs. 11), “’For he repays a person according to his actions, [and provides for one according to his ways].’ He brings everything [upon a person] according to his [own] measure (of what he does).” R. Abbin the Levite said in the name of R. Abba bar Kahana, “The Holy One, blessed be He, does not measure out [reward and punishment] in a basket. Rather everything is with justice, as stated (in Ps. 75:8), ‘For it is God who judges]; one He puts down, and another He lifts up.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Job, “Even with regard to the hair which is upon you, I have made a follicle for it and made a measure for it, as stated (in Job 38:25), ‘Who split open a channel for the flow (i.e., for the hair).’” There is a story about a certain priest who examined leprosy spots. When he became poor, he wanted to go abroad. He called his wife [and] said to her, “Because people used to come to me to show their leprosy spots, it is hard from me to leave them. Rather come and let me teach you, so that you may examine the leprosy spots. If you see a person's hair with its follicle dried up, you will know that [such a person] is stricken; because for each and every hair the Holy One, blessed be He, has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks. If] its follicle dries up, the hair dries up.” His wife said to him, “But surely if for each and every hair the Holy One, blessed be He, has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks], in your case, since you are a human being, with so many hairs on you and with your children being supported²⁰PRHS, perhaps related to the Gk. adj. pronoos (“prudent”). by you, is it not all the more certain that the Holy One, blessed be He, will summon support for you?” Therefore, she did not allow him to go abroad. Another interpretation (of Job 38:25), “Who split open a channel for the flow”: When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the human, He created him with wisdom. How? If He had created him with a lot of water and a little blood, he would have become frail.²¹Gk.: asthenes, i.e., “weak” or “sick.” If He had created him with a lot of blood and a little water, he would have become a leper. [He therefore created him with] half water and half blood, [thereby] a perfect human.

6) This tells me only (of blossoming similar to that in flowers), from bottom to top. Whence do I derive the same for (blossoming) from top to bottom? From "if there blossom, blossom" (— in any manner.)

6) "then he shall declare the plague-spot clean … it is clean": What is the intent of this? I might think that blossoming renders clean only after confirmation of michyah in the beginning (i.e., at the first inspection, as per the verse). Whence do I derive the same for confirmation of michyah at the end of the first week (of quarantine), at the end of the second week; after confirmation of white hair in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption (at the end of the second week by reason of its remaining the same in appearance); after confirmation of spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; and blossoming (in all of him) after quarantine? (Whence do you derive that blossoming renders all of these clean?) From "then he shall declare the plague-spot clean … it is clean." — to include all (of the above instances).

6) (Vayikra 13:15) ("And the Cohein shall see the living flesh and he shall declare him tamei. The living flesh is tamei; it is leprosy.") What is the intent of this? I might think that limb tips that were revealed (by recession of the nega from them) rendered one tamei (by reason of impeding complete blossoming) only after the (complete) blossoming of a confirmed michyah in the beginning (i.e., before quarantine, as per the verse). Whence do I derive (that he is tamei) after blossoming of the same at the end of the first week (of quarantine), at the end of the second week, after exemption (at the end of the second week by reason of its remaining the same in appearance); after blossoming of confirmed white hair in he beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption; after blossoming of confirmed spreading at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after exemption? (Whence do we derive that revelation of limb tips by recession of the nega renders all of these tamei? [Note: Chapter 4:6 discusses rendering one tahor]) From "And the Cohein shall see the living flesh and he shall declare him tamei. The living flesh is tamei" — to include all (of the above instances).

6) This tells me only of a boil which arose of itself. Whence do I derive for inclusion as a boil the result of a blow from a stick, a stone, or peat, (or the result of bathing in) the hot springs of Tiberias, or of anything which is not caused by fire? From "boil" and again [Vayikra 13:19]) "boil," implying extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil (which arose) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a boil which arose) in a proselyte after he converted. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose in a proselyte) before he converted? Of (a boil which arose) in a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) in a minor before he was born? From "boil," "boil," for extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil which has room to spread, (it being written afterwards [Vayikra 13:22] "And if it spread in the skin"). Whence to I derive the same for a boil which does not have room to spread? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. This tells me only (of an instance of) part-boil, part-bahereth; part-bahereth, all boil. Whence do I derive the same for part-boil, all bahereth? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. "in its skin" — even in all of it (i.e., all boil-all bahereth).

6) This tells me only of a boil which arose of itself. Whence do I derive for inclusion as a boil the result of a blow from a stick, a stone, or peat, (or the result of bathing in) the hot springs of Tiberias, or of anything which is not caused by fire? From "boil" and again [Vayikra 13:19]) "boil," implying extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil (which arose) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a boil which arose) in a proselyte after he converted. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose in a proselyte) before he converted? Of (a boil which arose) in a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) in a minor before he was born? From "boil," "boil," for extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil which has room to spread, (it being written afterwards [Vayikra 13:22] "And if it spread in the skin"). Whence to I derive the same for a boil which does not have room to spread? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. This tells me only (of an instance of) part-boil, part-bahereth; part-bahereth, all boil. Whence do I derive the same for part-boil, all bahereth? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. "in its skin" — even in all of it (i.e., all boil-all bahereth).

6) "and it shall be … a plague-spot (lenega)": We are hereby taught (that in order for it to qualify as a plague-spot) it must give him pain, (this being the connotation of "nega"). And whence do we derive that others, too, when they witness his pain, must, likewise, "feel" his pain? From "lenega." The (redundant) "leprosy" indicates that it must be (at least) the size of a garis (a bean). (Why is a verse necessary for this?) Does it not follow? viz.: "timei" is written here (I Samuel 2:3), and "timei" is written in respect to michyah (I Samuel 2:25). Just as there, the size of a garis; here, too, the size of a garis.

6) This tells me only of a boil which arose of itself. Whence do I derive for inclusion as a boil the result of a blow from a stick, a stone, or peat, (or the result of bathing in) the hot springs of Tiberias, or of anything which is not caused by fire? From "boil" and again [Vayikra 13:19]) "boil," implying extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil (which arose) after the pronouncement. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) before the pronouncement? (This tells me only of a boil which arose) in a proselyte after he converted. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose in a proselyte) before he converted? Of (a boil which arose) in a minor after he was born. Whence do I derive the same for (a boil which arose) in a minor before he was born? From "boil," "boil," for extension of inclusion. This tells me only of a boil which has room to spread, (it being written afterwards [Vayikra 13:22] "And if it spread in the skin"). Whence to I derive the same for a boil which does not have room to spread? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. This tells me only (of an instance of) part-boil, part-bahereth; part-bahereth, all boil. Whence do I derive the same for part-boil, all bahereth? From "if there be in it" — even in all of it. "in its skin" — even in all of it (i.e., all boil-all bahereth).

6) (Vayikra 13:22) ("And if it spreads, spreads, in the skin, the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is plague.") "spreads, spreads, in the skin": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:27) "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day, if it spreads, spreads, in the skin," I might think that a spreading renders him unclean only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive the same for the eighth, ninth, and tenth day? From (the redundant) "spread, spread."

6) (Vayikra 13:26) "And if the Cohein see it," (all in one sighting). "and there is not in the bahereth white hair": As they have said: This includes (as being considered part of the burn) a strand, the breadth of two hairs, that projects from it.

6) (Vayikra 13:22) ("And if it spreads, spreads, in the skin, the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is plague.") "spreads, spreads, in the skin": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 13:27) "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day, if it spreads, spreads, in the skin," I might think that a spreading renders him unclean only on the seventh day. Whence do I derive the same for the eighth, ninth, and tenth day? From (the redundant) "spread, spread."

6) "thin": shriveled and short. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yochanan b. Nuri said: What do people say? "This stick is thin"? "This reed is thin"? "thin, shriveled, and short"? — or "thin, shriveled, and long"? R. Akiva countered: Rather than learn from a reed, let us learn from a hair. (People say) "That man's hair is thin," "thin, shriveled, and short" — not "thin, shriveled, and long."

6) "a plague-spot of leprosy and he shall see it": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 15:11) "And the Cohein shall declare him tamei; he shall not quarantine him" we learn that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined.

6) For which "yellow hair" (do I need the verse to tell me that it does not "rescue"), according to the words of R. Yehudah, who holds (even without that verse) that (even) if yellow hair precedes the nethek it is tamei? (I need the verse for the following instance:) If there were two hairs, one yellow and one black, or one yellow and one white, I would think that since they do not combine for tumah, they do combine for taharah (i.e., to render the nethek tahor); it must, therefore, be written "and there is no black hair in it" — black ([two black hairs] in the above instance) rescues (from tumah); yellow does not rescue. R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Yellow hair which precedes the nethek neither confirms (tumah) nor rescues from it. R. Shimon says: Whatever is not a sign of tumah in a nethek is a sign of taharah in a nethek.

6) "Then he shall be shaved": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head," I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — even if he was afflicted.

6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of "And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return" - (Vayikra 13:43) "and if the plague-spot returns." Just as the "returning" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.

6) R. Chanina, the adjutant high-priest, says: The appearances of plague-spots are sixteen. R. Dossa b. Hyrcanus says: They are thirty-six. Akavya b. Mehalalel says: They are seventy-two. R. Yossi said: R. Yehoshua b. R. Akiva asked R. Akiva: Why did they say "The appearances of negaim are two, which are four"? R. Akiva: If not, what should they say? R. Yehoshua: They should say: From the membrane of an egg and above it (in brightness) is tamei. R. Akiva: To teach us that they combine with each other (to form the prescribed size for tumah). R. Yehoshua: Then let them say: Everything from the membrane of an egg and above (in brightness), and they combine with each other. R. Akiva: To teach us that if one is not expert in them and in their names he should not inspect negaim.

6) (Vayikra 13:42) ("And if there be on the karachath [the slope of the head towards the nape] or on the gabachath [the slope of the head towards the face] a reddish-white plague-spot, it is blossoming leprosy on his karachath or on his gabachath.") I might think that even if one's head balded because of illness he would be tamei (through a reddish-white plague-spot); it is, therefore, written "karachath" and "gabachath." Just as "karachath" does not grow hair, so "gabachath" does not grow hair (to exclude the above, where he will grow hair upon recovery). Why, then, not say: Just as karachath is at the hands of Heaven, so gabachath is at the hands of Heaven? Whence, then, do I derive (as being tamei) one who ate or anointed himself with neshem (an "irreversible" depilatory)? To that end it is written "baldness," "baldness" (twice) for inclusion (of the above).

6) Let us see what it [karachath] most resembles. We derive something which confers tumah through michyah [i.e., karachath], from something which confers tumah through michyah [i.e., skin of the flesh], and this is not to be refuted by boil or burn, which do not confer tumah through michyah. — But, perhaps go in this direction: We derive something [karachath] which confers tumah through two signs (michyah and spreading) from something [boil or burn] which confers tumah through two signs (spreading and white hair), and this is not to be refuted by skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through three signs (white hair, michyah, and spreading). It must, therefore, be written "as the appearance of the leprosy of the skin of the flesh" — two weeks. "leprosy": (the size of) a garis (see Section 4, Chapter 7:9). Now does this not follow by induction. (Why make special mention of "leprosy" to this end?) Tumah is conferred here [karachath] and tumah is conferred through boil or burn. Just as boil or burn, the size of a garis, here, too, the size of a garis!

6) If in the end we will include a returning plague-spot (even if it does not spread), what is the intent of "And the Cohein shall come and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread"? — Leave it (i.e., This is not the place of this verse. It does not refer to post-removal and scraping, but to spreading at the end of the second week, as in 7) below.) Or, once we have learned that if the plague-spot returns and blossoms in the house (even if it does not spread, it is tamei), then, if we see it returning on the same day (of the plastering), it should be declared tamei (and razed immediately)! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return" - (Vayikra 13:43) "and if the plague-spot returns." Just as the "returning" there, is at the end of one week, so, (the returning) here, is at the end of one week.

6) "his clothes shall be frumim"; they shall be rent. "and his hair shall be farua": he shall let it grow long. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: "shall be" is stated in respect to head, and "shall be" is stated in respect to garments. Just as the latter are outside his body, so the former (i.e., hair) is outside his body.

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

6) Let us see what it most resembles. We derive something that incurs tumah in two weeks from something which incurs tumah in two weeks, and this is not to be refuted by houses, which incur tumah in three weeks. But perhaps go in this direction: We derive something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red from something which incurs tumah with deep green and deep red, and this is not to be refuted by skin of the flesh, which does not incur tumah with deep green and deep red; it is, therefore, written "it is a plague-spot of leprosy."

6) "and it is dim": If it were bright (in the beginning), and it became dim (i.e., the dimmest of the four plague-spots), it is as if it were never bright (and he is declared tahor). "the plague-spot": If it were dim (in the beginning), and it became bright (even as snow), it is as if it were never dim (and it [along with the above], is regarded as "appearing as it did before" [viz. Vayikra 13:5], and he is tahor).

6) "and he shall quarantine it a second seven days": We are hereby taught that the seventh day is included in the count — both before it and after it (i.e., the last of the first seven, and the first of the second seven.)

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

6) "and it has turned (the hair white"): (The connotation is that) all of it has turned all of it (white), and not that all of it has turned part of it (white). How so? A bahereth of half a garis, and in it (was generated) one (white) hair. If another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it (was generated) another white hair, it is to be quarantined. A bahereth of half a garis, and nothing in it, and there erupted another half-garis bahereth, and two hairs (were generated), it is to be confirmed, for the (whole) bahereth turned all of it (white).

(Lev. 13:2) “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” Why does it not say, “Speak unto the Children of Israel,” just as it says in all the [other] sections²²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of, “When anyone has”]?²³The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the Children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on Tanh., Lev. 4:7, according to whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not delight in citing the Children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10), “My plan shall come to pass, and I will accomplish all My desire.” Whoever hears this verse, says, “Perhaps there is tyranny on high.” R. Tanhuma said, “What is the meaning of “and I will accomplish all My desire?” That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “That I do not desire the death of the wicked.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of “evil may not abide with You?” R. Johanan said, “David said to the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Master of the world, if You desire to acquit, who will protest your authority?’” (Eccl. 8:4:)”For a king's word is supreme, and who may say to him, ‘what are you doing?’” It is customary, when a [local] ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal²⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.²⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;²⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king. But is the king afraid of anyone? And [so is it with] You; if You desire to acquit or convict, of whom are You afraid? (Ps. 5:5), “Evil may not abide (ygwr) with You”: This expression (ygwr) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19), “For I was afraid (from ygwr) of anger and rage.”

“Tell me, he whom my soul loves, where do you herd, where do you rest your flock at noon? Why should I be as one bound to the flocks of your companions” (Song of Songs 1:7).
“Tell me, he whom my soul loves,” Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Simon interpreted the verse regarding Moses. When the Holy One blessed be He said to him: “Now go and I will send you to Pharaoh” (Exodus 3:10), he said to Him: ‘Master of the universe, through me, my Lord, can all these things be accomplished?²²¹“Through me [bi], Lord,” is a play on the phrase “Please [bi] my Lord” (Exodus 4:13). How can I stand before all these multitudes? How many new mothers are there among them? How many pregnant women are there among them? How many small children are there among them? How many kinds of hearty food have You prepared for the new mothers among them? How many kinds of soft foods have You prepared for the pregnant women among them? How much roasted grain and how many nuts have You prepared for the small children among them?’ Where is this matter articulated?²²²Where is it articulated that Moses’ claim to God was that he would not be able to properly care for the children of Israel? Here: “Tell me, he whom my soul loves”—the nation that my soul loves, the nation for whom I put my soul on the line; “where do you herd”—during the summer; “where do you rest your flock at noon”—during the rainy season. “Why should I be as one bound [keoteya],” Rabbi Ḥelbo said in the name of Rabbi Huna: Let me not be like this mourner who covers [oteh] until his upper lip and weeps, just as you say: “And he shall cover until his upper lip” (Leviticus 13:45).
Another matter, “Why should I be as one bound,” let me not be like this shepherd that wolves infiltrated his flock and mauled it, and he wrapped his garment and departed, just as it says: “He will wrap the land of Egypt” (Jeremiah 43:12). “To the flocks of your companions,” when I [Moses] go to Your companions²²³This is a reference to the patriarchs. and they ask me about their flocks, what will I respond to them?

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander < to Eve > against his creator, for that reason he became leprous.²¹Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5): FOR GOD KNOWS THAT ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, < YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED > [….] He said to her: Every artisan hates his fellow < artisan >.²²The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when < the Holy One > wanted to create his world, he ate from this tree. So he created his world. You < two > also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like him. The Holy One said to < the serpent >: You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14): SO THE LORD GOD SAID UNTO THE SERPENT: < BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD…. > With what did he curse him? With leprosy. Now a curse ('arirah) can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52): FOR IT IS A MALIGNANT (mam'eret) LEPROSY.²³The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna of Sha'av said [in the name of] R. Joshua ben Levi: The scales {i.e., the colors} which are on the snake are his leprosy.²⁴Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.²⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14): MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, < THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD >. What is the meaning of THAN ALL? That they all shall be healed, but < the serpent > shall not be healed. The children of Adam shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5–6): {THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. } THEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND SHALL BE OPENED…. [THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. ] It is also written about the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25): THE WOLF AND THE LAMB SHALL FEED TOGETHER, < AND THE LION LIKE THE OX SHALL EAT STRAW >; but the snake shall not have healing, since it is stated (ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST. R. Helbo said: Even though he may eat all the delicacies in the world, to him they only taste like dust. Moreover, it shall also be like this in the world to come. (Is. 65:25): BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST, for he shall have no healing, because he < was the one who > brought mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have < this punishment >? < It happened > because he had spoken slander. Ergo (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. In this book there are a lot of laws. {(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.} (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. [(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.] (Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. And here also (in Lev. 14:2) I have established the law of the leper: THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER….

[(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER.] And thus you find with the primeval serpent, because he spoke slander < to Eve > against his creator, for that reason he became leprous.²¹Cf. Gen. R. 19:4. What did he say? R. Joshua ben Levi said (citing Gen. 3:5): FOR GOD KNOWS THAT ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, < YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED > [….] He said to her: Every artisan hates his fellow < artisan >.²²The saying is proverbial. See Gen. R. 32:2; M. Pss. 11:6. Now when < the Holy One > wanted to create his world, he ate from this tree. So he created his world. You < two > also eat from it. Then you will be able to create like him. The Holy One said to < the serpent >: You have spoken slander. Your end is to be stricken with leprosy. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:14): SO THE LORD GOD SAID UNTO THE SERPENT: < BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD…. > With what did he curse him? With leprosy. Now a curse ('arirah) can only be leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:52): FOR IT IS A MALIGNANT (mam'eret) LEPROSY.²³The argument assumes that ‘arirah and mam’eret share the same root. So also Exod. R. 3:13. R. Huna of Sha'av said [in the name of] R. Joshua ben Levi: The scales {i.e., the colors} which are on the snake are his leprosy.²⁴Gen. R. 20:4. And not only that, but when all the deformed are cured in the world to come, the snake shall not be cured.²⁵Above, Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 11:9; Tanh., Gen. 11:8; Gen. R. 95:1. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 3:14): MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, < THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD >. What is the meaning of THAN ALL? That they all shall be healed, but < the serpent > shall not be healed. The children of Adam shall be healed, as stated (in Is. 35:5–6): {THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. } THEN THE EYES OF THE BLIND SHALL BE OPENED…. [THEN THE LAME SHALL LEAP LIKE A HART…. ] It is also written about the wild beasts and the cattle (in Is. 65:25): THE WOLF AND THE LAMB SHALL FEED TOGETHER, < AND THE LION LIKE THE OX SHALL EAT STRAW >; but the snake shall not have healing, since it is stated (ibid., cont.:) BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST. R. Helbo said: Even though he may eat all the delicacies in the world, to him they only taste like dust. Moreover, it shall also be like this in the world to come. (Is. 65:25): BUT THE SERPENT'S FOOD SHALL BE DUST, for he shall have no healing, because he < was the one who > brought mortals down to the dust. And what caused him to have < this punishment >? < It happened > because he had spoken slander. Ergo (in Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. In this book there are a lot of laws. {(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.} (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE BURNT OFFERING. [(Lev. 7:1:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE GUILT OFFERING.] (Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. And here also (in Lev. 14:2) I have established the law of the leper: THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER….

(Fol. 32b) We are taught that R. Simon b. Jochai says: "A man should recite his praises in a low voice, but his disgraces in a loud voice." That one should announce his praises in a low voice we infer from the chapter of Tithes. (Deut. 26, 5) And that one should announce his disgrace in a loud voice we infer from the chapter of offering of the first of fruit (Ib., ib. 13) "One should announce his disgrace in a loud voice." R. Jochanan said in the name of R. Jochai: "Why have the Rabbis arranged that the prayers [of Amida] should be said in silence? In order not to put to disgrace those who committed crimes [who desire to confess their iniquities]: for the passage does not assign separate places for the slaughtering of a sin-offering and the slaughtering of a burnt-offering [which is only a mere donation]. Do not read that the disgrace of a man should be read in a loud voice, but read the trouble of a man [should be read in a loud voice]. As we are taught in the following Baraitha: (Lev. 13, 45) And unclean, unclean, shall he call out. This is to mean that one should inform the public of his troubles so that the public should pray for his mercy.

7) This tells me only (of a blossoming) from an unclean plague-spot to a clean one. Whence do I derive the same for (the blossoming of) a clean one to an unclean one? From "blossom" (— in any manner.) "and if it blossom": R. Nechemiah says: If in the beginning it blossomed from an unclean spot to a clean one, it is clean; from a clean one to an unclean one, it is unclean.

7) I might think that (an unclean plague-spot) which blossoms from a clean one is clean. It is, therefore, written "It is clean, but (an unclean plague-spot) which blossoms from a clean one is not clean but unclean.

7) I might think that if one came all white (and he were quarantined, and no further signs of tumah appeared in him) and his limb tips were revealed after exemption — (I might think) that he were tamei; it is, therefore, written "it (is tamei") (to exclude the above). I would then exclude him, but I would not exclude one who came all white, whose limb tips were revealed either in confirmation or in quarantine. It is, therefore, written "it is tamei; it is leprosy," but he above is not tamei but tahor.

7) They asked R. Eliezer: If there arose on one's palm (where hair cannot grow) a bahereth the size of a sela, and its place is the peel of the boil (i.e., the bahereth spread on all of the peel), what is the halachah? He said to them: It is to be quarantined. They: Why? It cannot grow white hair, it cannot spread, and it cannot become tamei through michyah! He: Perhaps it will recede and then spread. They: But what if its place were the size of a garis, (where there is not enough room for it to recede and spread)? He: That is what I have heard: It is to be quarantined. R. Yehudah b. Betheirah to R. Eliezer: Shall I give a reason for it? R. Eliezer: If to substantiate the words of the sages (that it is to be quarantined), yes; (if not, no.) R. Yehudah: Perhaps another boil will arise outside of it and it will spread into it. R. Eliezer: You are a sage; for you have substantiated the words of sages.

7) — No, this may be so of michyah, whose middle must be the size of a lentil, as opposed to "white hair" (I Samuel 2:3), the site of which need not be of any prescribed size; it is, therefore, written "the size of a garis."

7) If he were confirmed through white hair, and the white hair disappeared and then returned; and, similarly, through a spreading: at first inspection, at the end of a week, after exemption — where he was confirmed through the spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and similarly, through white hair, at the end of the first or the second week, or after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) "and if it spreads, spreads."

7) "and it is not lower than the skin and it is dim": As they have said: This includes (an appearance that is) level (with the skin) or higher.

7) I might think that (the nethek) is in addition to the four "appearances" of the skin of the flesh; it is, therefore, written "Then the Cohein shall declare him tamei; it is a nethek" (a bald spot. That is the only criterion, and not the four appearances.)

7) Whence is it derived that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed, that a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second plague-spot), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second plague-spot)? From "he shall not quarantine him for he is tamei" — Everyone who has been called tamei is not to be attended (for new eruptions within that period).

7) "there is not in it (the nethek) a black hair": "in it" — so that it (the black hair) is surrounded by it (the nethek. Only then is he tahor.) From here they ruled (Negaim 10:6): If there were two nethakim alongside each other, a column of hair separating them — If it (the column) were breached (with baldness) in one place, he is tamei, (for it must be that one of the nethakim has spread.) But if it were breached in two places (with two black hairs left in the middle), he is tahor, (for the two breaches are regarded as part of one nethek with two black hairs within it, which "rescue" him from tumah.) How large must each breach be, (for the two nethakim to be regarded as one, with black hair in the middle, and thus rescue him from tumah)? The size of two hairs. If it were breached (only) in one place, the size of a garis, he is tamei, (the black hair not being regarded as surrounded by the nega).

7) I might think that just as the shaving of the nega overrides the (prohibition against) shaving the Nazirite when it (the nega) is a certainty, so (the mitzvah of) shaving the Nazirite (at the completion of the days of his Naziritism) overrides the prohibition against shaving the nethek when it (the completion of the Nazirite period) is a certainty; it is, therefore, written (of this contingency) "but the nethek he shall not shave." Now what (hair) is there in the nethek that it need be written "but the nethek he shall not shave"? The meaning must be, then: "Around the nethek he shall not shave." How so? He shaves outside of it and leaves (a border of hair) two hairs (thick) around it, so that it will be discernible if the nethek spreads. (And it is this hair border that the verse is referring to.) And whence is it derived that one who tears signs of tumah (yellow hairs) from the midst of his nega transgresses a negative commandment? From "but the nethek (i.e., anything in it) he shall not shave" (i.e., depilate).

7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread." Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return," and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come." Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with "returning," he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with "coming."

7) "and its hair has not turned white": its hair and not the hair of its michyah (a kind of scar, viz. 13:24). How so? If the bahereth were the size of a garis, and in it a michyah the size of a lentil, and a white hair in the midst of the michyah — if the michyah leaves, it is tamei by reason of white hair; if the white hair leaves, it is tamei by reason of michyah. R. Shimon rules it tahor because it is not the bahereth that turned the hair white, (but the michyah). They said to him: Is it not written (3) "if hair in the plague-spot has turned white"? It is a plague-spot, in any event.

7) (Vayikra 13:55) ("And the Cohein shall see, after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance, and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean. In fire shall you burn it; it is p'cheteth in its karachath or in its gabachath.") "after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean.": If it has not changed and not spread, it is tamei; but if it changed and did not spread, it should be examined as in the beginning. These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: It is tamei by reason of omed (viz. Vayikra 13:4 above). How, then, am I to understand "and, behold, it has not changed"? From any appearance that renders it subject to tumah (even if it changed from green to red).

7) (Vayikra 13:41) ("And if from the front of his face, his hair fall out, he is gibeach [bald]; he is clean.") This tells me only of the front of his face. Whence do I derive the temples on either side for inclusion? From "And if from the front of his face." What is "karachath" and what is "gabachath"? From the forehead sloping backwards is "karachath." From the forehead sloping forwards is "gabachath."

7) No, this may be true of boil or burn, which confer tumah through white hair, and the size of the white hair requires no space, so that a garis suffices for the size of the boil or burn, as opposed to karachath and gabachath, which confer tumah through a michyah, which requires the size of a lentil, (so that they should be of greater size than a garis relative to the michyah in order to confer tumah). This is refuted by skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through a michyah and confers tumah (even) by the size of a garis.

7) And whence is it derived that if it remained as it was at the end of the first week and it spread in the second week, he removes and scrapes and plasters, and he is given another week? From (Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come and see, and, behold, the plague-spot has spread." Of what is this speaking? If of spreading in the first week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking, then, of his having come at the end of the first week and finding it to have remained the same, and coming at the end of the second week and finding it to have spread. What should be done? I derive it inductively from the spreading of the first week, i.e., he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. The same obtains with the spreading of the second week. — Now if we were lenient with spreading in the first week, it is because we were lenient with its remaining the same. Shall we then be lenient with spreading in the second week, where we are stringent with its remaining the same? It is, therefore, written (re the end of the first week, Vayikra 13:39) "And the Cohein shall return," and (re the end of the second week, Vayikra 13:44) "And the Cohein shall come." Returning and coming are one and the same. Just as with "returning," he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week, so, with "coming."

7) "and his upper lip ya'ateh": He covers his head like a mourner. "and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry": so that they separate from him. This tells me of this (particular state) alone. Whence do I derive that other afflicted ones (i.e., lepers) are also included? From (the redundant) "'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry."

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

7) "has not spread": If it had diminished (to less than the size of a garis) and then spread (to its appearance of the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as "appearing as it did before," and he is tahor). "the plague-spot": If it had spread and then diminished (to its appearance at the previous sighting), it is as if it had never diminished (and is regarded as "appearing as it did before," and he is tahor).

7) (Vayikra 13:50) "And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot, and he shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days.": This is the first quarantine.

7) (Vayikra 13:55) ("And the Cohein shall see, after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance, and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean. In fire shall you burn it; it is p'cheteth in its karachath or in its gabachath.") "after the plague-spot has been washed, and, behold, the plague-spot has not changed its appearance and the plague-spot has not spread, it is unclean.": If it has not changed and not spread, it is tamei; but if it changed and did not spread, it should be examined as in the beginning. These are the words of R. Yehudah. And the sages say: It is tamei by reason of omed (viz. Vayikra 13:4 above). How, then, am I to understand "and, behold, it has not changed"? From any appearance that renders it subject to tumah (even if it changed from green to red).

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

7) "and the michyah of living flesh (within the se'eth"): I might think that any amount (of living flesh sufficed); it is, therefore, written: "white hair and michyah": Just as "white hair" connotes space for (at least) two hairs, so, michyah connotes that space.

(Lev. 13:1–3:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST…. AND THE PRIEST SHALL INSPECT THE PLAGUE ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH >…. This text is related (to Job 38:25): WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE FLOW (ShTP)? R. Joshua of Sikhnin said in the name of R. Levi: In Arabia they call the hair (S'R) a flood (ShTP'). Thus²⁶I.e., interpreting Job 38:25 to mean, WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE HAIR? for each and every hair that a person has the < Holy One > has created its own separate follicle (literally: well).²⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:6; cf. Lev. R. 15:3; BB 16a. Because Job uttered a complaint and said: (in Job 9:17): FOR HE CRUSHES ME WITH A TEMPEST (rt.: S'R)²⁸The Targum and Peshitta both read, FOR A HAIR. [AND MULTIPLIES MY WOUNDS FOR NO REASON], < i.e. > for no reason he has brought all these afflictions upon me; Elihu said to him (in Job 34:10): Heaven forbid! MAY WICKEDNESS BE FAR FROM GOD AND INJUSTICE, FROM THE ALMIGHTY. Rather (in vs. 11): FOR HE REPAYS A PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS ACTIONS, [AND PROVIDES FOR ONE ACCORDING TO HIS WAYS]. He brings everything < upon a person > according to measure. R. Abbin the Levite said in the name of R. Abba bar Kahana: The Holy One does not measure out reward and punishment {with a respite} [in a basket]. Rather everything is with justice, as stated (in Ps. 75:8 [7]): [FOR IT IS GOD WHO JUDGES]; ONE HE PUTS DOWN, AND ANOTHER HE LIFTS UP. The Holy One said to Job: Even with regard to the hair which is upon you, I have made a follicle for it and made a measure for it, as stated (in Job 38:25): WHO SPLIT OPEN A CHANNEL FOR THE FLOW (i.e., FOR THE HAIR). There is a story about a certain priest who examined leprosy spots. When he became poor, he wanted to go abroad. He called his wife < and > said to her: Because people used to come to me to show their leprosy spots, come and let me teach you, so that you may examine the leprosy spots. If you see a person's hair with its follicle dried up, you will know that < such a person > is stricken, because for each and every hair the Holy One has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks]. < If > its follicle dries up, the hair dries up. His wife said to him: But surely if for each and every hair the Holy One has created its own separate follicle [from which it drinks], in your case, since you are a human being, with so many hairs on you and with your children being supported²⁹PRHS, perhaps related to the Gk. adj. pronoos (“prudent”). by you, is it not all the more certain that the Holy One will summon support for you?³⁰Cf. Matthew 10:29–31 // Luke 12:6–7. Therefore, she did not allow him to go abroad.

(Lev. 13:2:) “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” This text is related (to Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful [is that one].”²⁷In the biblical context THAT ONE is the nation of the Chaldeans. This verse is speaking about the first Adam, about Pharaoh, about Edom, about Sennacherib and about Nebuchadnezzar.²⁸Cf. Lev. R. 18:2. How does it concern the first Adam? R. Abba bar Kahana said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the first Adam, He created him in His likeness, as stated (in Gen. 1:27), ‘And God created man (Adam) in His own image.’” And when He created him, He created him [to extend] from the one end of the world to the other, as stated (in Deut. 4:32), “So please ask about the former days which came before you, [ever since the day that God created man upon the earth, even from one end of heaven to the other].”²⁹Cf. Gen. R. 8:1. Now he ruled over the whole earth, as stated (in Gen. 1:28), “and rule over the fish of the sea […].” It also says (in Gen. 9:2), “And the dread of you and the fear of you [shall be upon every beast of the earth].” It is therefore stated (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful.” This refers to the first Adam. (Ibid., cont.:) “His justice and his dignity proceed from himself.”³⁰The midrash requires such a literal translation. In the biblical context a more normal translation would read with reference to the Chaldeans: THEIR JUSTICE AND THEIR DIGNITY PROCEED FROM THEMSELVES. This refers to Eve who came out of him, as she caused him to die, as stated (in Gen. 3:6), “Then she also gave some to her husband, and he ate.” And where is it shown that she came out of him? Where it is so written (in Gen. 2:23), “bone out of my bone and flesh out of my flesh.” Ergo (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful [is that one],” this refers to the first Adam; “his justice and his dignity proceed from himself,” this refers to Eve, who came out from him. Another interpretation (of Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is that one”: This refers to Pharaoh, [when] he was world ruler,³¹Gk.: Kosmokraton. as stated (concerning him in Ps. 105:20), “the ruler of peoples released him (i.e., Joseph).” (Hab. 1:7, cont.:), “His justice and his dignity proceed from himself.” This refers to Moses, since he was reared within that one's house, so that he believed that he [actually] was a child of his house, as stated (in Exod. 2:10), “When the boy had grown up, she brought him [to Pharaoh's daughter; and he became her son].” Then he arose and brought ten plagues upon him, as stated (in Exod. 3:10), “So come now, I will send you unto Pharaoh.” R. Judah said, “The rod had a weight of forty seah and was [made] of sapphire;³²Gk.: sappheirinon, an adj. meaning “of sapphire,” or “of lapsis lazuli.” it also had ten plagues (makkot) inscribed upon it with the acronym³³notarikon. dtsk 'dsh b'hb.³⁴D = dam (“blood”), Ts = Tsefardia‘ (“frogs”), K= kinnim (“gnats”), ‘ = ‘arov (“flies”), D = dever (“cattle pestilence”), Sh = shehin (“boils”), B = barad (“hail”), ‘ = ‘arbeh (“locusts”), H = hoshekh (“darkness”), B = bekhorot (“first-born”). Then Moses, when he had looked at the rod and seen the punishment (makkah) which had been appointed to come, brought it upon Pharaoh. Ergo (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful [is that one],” this refers to Pharaoh; “his justice and his dignity proceed from himself,” this refers to Moses. And also the messiah, who in the future will take retribution from Gog and Magog and all of its troops, grew up with them in the city, as stated (Isaiah 27:10), “there shall the calf feed, and there shall he lie down and consume the branches thereof.” Another interpretation (of Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful [is that one]”: This refers to Edom, of which it is stated (in Dan. 7:7), “frightful, dreadful, and [exceedingly] strong.” (Hab. 1:7, cont.), “His justice and his dignity proceed from himself.” This refers to Obadiah since he was an Edomite proselyte and he also prophesied [against] him (i.e., against Edom, in Obad. 1:1), “The vision of Obadiah; thus says the Lord God to Edom […].”³⁵Cf. Sanh. 39b. Ergo (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful,” this refers to Edom; “his justice and his dignity proceed from himself,” this refers to Obadiah.Another interpretation (of Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful”: This refers to Sennacherib, since it is stated (in II Kings 19:24), “with the sole of my feet I have dried up all the streams of Egypt.” He also said (in II Kings 18:35 = Is. 36:20 // II Chron. 32:14), “Who are there among all the gods of the lands which have saved their land from my hand?” And it also says (in Is. 8:8), “and the radial bones³⁶For this translation of muttah, see Jastrow, s.v. In the context of Scripture, a more normal translation of muttah would be “spread.” of his wings (i.e., the army of Sennacherib) shall fill the breadth of your land, O Immanu-El].”³⁷Cf. M. Pss. 79:1. One sixtieth of the troops³⁸Gk.: ochlos. had been sufficient for the Land of Israel, since it is stated (ibid.), “and the radial bone of his wings.” This radial bone of a cock is one sixtieth of its wings. When he came to enter Jerusalem, he said to his troops, “You sleep, and in the morning we shall throw our rings into its midst and stone them with them.”³⁹In other words, Sennacherib believed that his army was so large and Jerusalem so small that his army could bury the city in their rings. Cf. Sanh. 95a, according to some renderings of which, each soldier would use as much mortar as necessary to seal a letter with a signet ring. So Levi, in his Talmud and Midrash lexicon, s.v., gulmohrag. See also Rashi on this passage, according to whom the army would use stones easily dislodged from the wall of Jerusalem. Ergo (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is he.” (Ibid., cont.:), “His justice and his dignity proceed from himself.” These refer to his children. When he went up to destroy Jerusalem, he did not succeed. [It is so stated (in II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36),] “the angel of the Lord went out and smote [one hundred and eighty-thousand] in the camp of Assyria….” It is also written (in II Chron. 32:21), “so he returned shamefaced to his own land, and when he came into the house of his god, [some of those who came out of his own belly struck him down there with the sword].” Ergo (in Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is he,” this refers to Sennacherib; “his justice and his dignity proceed from himself,” this refers to his children, who killed him. Another interpretation (of Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is he”: This refers to Nebuchadnezzar, of whom it is stated (in Is. 14:13), “And I will ascend to the heavens; [above the stars of God I will set my throne].” (Hab. 1:7, cont.:) “His justice and his dignity proceed from himself.” This refers to Evil-merodach (his son). Our masters have said, “When Nebuchadnezzar was driven away, just as it is written (in Dan. 4:29), ‘You shall be driven away from humankind’; all that time Evil-merodach served in his place.” Then when he returned, he put him in prison. Now whoever was imprisoned by him never emerged from the prison until the day of his death. Thus it is stated (in Is. 14:17), “he never released his prisoners to their homes.” When Nebuchadnezzar died, they wanted to make Evil-merodach king. They approached him, but he did not accept. He said to them, “I listened to you the first time. For that reason I was imprisoned. So now I shall not listen to you. Perhaps he is alive. Then he will rise up against me and kill me.” They stood over Nebuchadnezzar, dragged him from his grave, and brought him out. Then he saw that he was dead, and they made him king. [This act was] to fulfill what is stated (in Is. 14:19), “And you have been cast from your grave like a detestable offshoot.” Ergo (Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is he,” this refers to Nebuchadnezzar; “his justice and his dignity proceed from himself,” this refers to Evil-merodach. Another interpretation (of Hab. 1:7), “Terrible and dreadful is he”: This refers to the human race, which rules over all which the Holy One, blessed be He, has created in His world. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 8:7), “You have set him as ruler over the [works] of Your hands [….].” (Hab. 1:7, cont.) “His justice and his dignity proceed from him.” Thus when he sins, the Holy One, blessed be He, brings torments upon him from his [own body]. Why? Because His ways are not like the ways of flesh and blood. When [a person of] flesh and blood wants to punish his slaves, he brings [whips] and fetters to punish them and cause them pain; but the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like that. Rather it is from a person's whole body that He punishes and beats him. And from where is it shown? From what is written about the matter (in Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh [a swelling or a sore or a bright spot, and it becomes on the skin of his flesh the plague of leprosy, he shall be brought unto Aaron the priest].” One verse says (in Is. 46:10), “My plan shall come to pass, and I will accomplish all My desire.” But another verse says (in Ezek. 33:11), “As I live, says the Lord, [it is not my delight for the wicked to die].” This is what is written about the matter, (in Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh ….”; and it is [yet also] written (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.”

(Lev. 14:2:) < THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER IN THE DAY OF HIS CLEANSING: > HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO THE PRIEST. What is the meaning of HE SHALL BE BROUGHT (rt.: BW'). He comes (rt.: BW'). Why? Because everything is far off from him, for so David says (in Ps. 38:12 [11]): MY FRIENDS AND COMPANIONS {ARE FAR FROM ME. THEY} STAND ALOOF FROM MY AFFLICTION, AND MY KINFOLK STAND FAR OFF. So also it says (in Lev. 13:46): HE SHALL DWELL ALONE; HIS DWELLING SHALL BE OUTSIDE THE CAMP. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 14:2): HE SHALL BE BROUGHT (rt.: BW').

Raba questioned Rabba bar Mari again: "What is the origin of the following people's saying: 'Poverty follows the poor' (the man is always under disadvantage)." He answered: "In the following Mishnah: The rich bring the first fruit in golden or silver baskets [and take the baskets back], while the poor bring it in willow baskets, and the baskets remain with the fruit for the priests." "You find it in the Mishnah," said Raba to him, "but I find it (Ib. b) in the Scripture (Lev. 13, 45) And shall cry: Unclean, unclean. [It is not enough that he is afflicted, but he must himself call it out]."

8) I might think that it were not (tamei) unless both white hair and michyah obtained; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:11) "It (the michyah) is old leprosy." It (the michyah itself) is tamei, and it requires no further adjunct.

8) "then he shall be brought to Aaron": This tells me only of Aaron himself. Whence do I derive (the suitability of) another Cohein? From "the Cohein." Whence do I derive (the suitability [for inspection] of) blemished (Cohanim)? From "his sons" (even though they may not perform the sacrificial service). I might then think that even chalalim (those unfit for the priesthood) are included? It is, therefore, written "the Cohanim," excluding chalalim. And whence do I derive (the validity of) any Jew (in the absence of a Cohein? From "or to one (of his sons").

8) (Vayikra 13:22) "the Cohein shall declare him tamei": He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela, and we do not know in which one it spread. Whether (two plague-spots) in one man or one (plague-spot) in (each of) two men, he is tahor. R. Akiva said: In one man, he is tamei, (it being certain that at least one of the spots spread.) They countered: But is it not written "The Cohein shall declare him tamei"? — He declares tamei what is a certainty and not what is in doubt!

8) (Vayikra 13:27) "And the Cohein shall see him on the seventh day. If it has spread, spread, in the skin, etc." I might think that a spreading confers tumah only at the end of a week. Whence do I derive (that it does so) even after exemption? From (the redundant) "spread, spread."

8) I might think that it (a nethek) need not be in addition to the four appearances of the skin of the flesh, but that it does confer tumah in the place of the bahereth (i.e., in the rest of the body, and not only in the head and the beard.) It is, therefore, written "it is leprosy of the head or the beard." It confers tumah in the head or the beard, but not in the place of the bahereth.

8) I might think that (if both negaim originated together, the second arising before he had been quarantined for the first, etc.) he could not say: You are quarantined for this one and confirmed for this one, confirmed for this one and quarantined for this one, quarantined for this one and quarantined for this one, confirmed for this one and for this one — it is, therefore, written "a nega … and he shall inspect it"; "tzara'ath and he shall inspect it" (connoting that he inspects both at the same time [as in the above]). "and he shall see it": all as one. If it were at the tip of his nose, slanting in both directions, (so that he could not inspect the whole nega at the sighting), at the tip of his finger, slanting in both directions, he is not tamei.

8) (If there were) two nethakim, one in the middle of the other, and a column (i.e., a circle) of (black) hair separating them (so that the outer circle is tahor and the inner one tamei) — If it (the column) were breached in one place, it (the inner nethek) is tamei (and the outer one tahor). (If it were breached) in two places, it (the inner [and, it goes without saying, the outer]) is tahor, (the two breaches causing the whole to be regarded as one nethek with the surrounded black hairs in its midst). How large must each breach be? The size of two hairs. If it were breached in one side the size of a garis it is tahor because it contains black hair within it.

8) "and he shall wash his clothes": not to confer tumah on (his) couch or seat or (on the objects in a house) by entering (it). "and he is clean": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. "and he shall wash his clothes and he shall be clean": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:35) "And if the nethek shall spread … he is tamei."

8) "and its hair has not turned white": and not the hair of part of it. How so? A bahereth and its michyah is a garis, and there is white hair in the midst of the bahereth — if the michyah leaves, it is tamei by reason of white hair; if the white hair leaves, it is tamei by reason of michyah. R. Shimon rules it tahor because it is not a bahereth the size of a garis that turned it white, (its michyah having rendered it less than a garis). And all agree that if there is in the site of the white hair the size of a garis (aside from the michyah), it is tamei.

8) No, this may be true of skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through three signs, as opposed to karachath and gabachath, which confer tumah through only two signs, so, the Torah, having been relatively lenient with them, perhaps they must be greater than a garis to confer tumah. It must, therefore, be written (re karachath and gabachath) "Leprosy," (to teach that they confer tumah even if they are only) the size of a garis.

8) Whence is it derived that if it remained the same in this (the first week) and in this (the second week), he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week? From its being written (instead of) "and if the Cohein comes," (Vayikra 13:44), "and if the Cohein come, shall come" — two comings. Of what is this speaking? If of its having spread in the first week, this has already been stated. If of its having spread in the second week, this has already been stated. It must be speaking of his having come at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week, (Vayikra 13:44) "and he shall see, and, behold, the plague-spot has not spread," i.e., it remains the same. What should be done? Can I think that he (simply) leaves and walks away? It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:44) "for the plague-spot has been healed." I have cleansed only what has been healed (through an additional removal, scraping, etc. [See Rashi in Chumash]).

8) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in "'Unclean! Unclean!' etc.") nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry."

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

8) If they (i.e., the essential words) have been stated in relation to the first week (Vayikra 13:5), why need they be restated in relation to the second week (Vayikra 13:6)? (i.e., let it simply be written "And the Cohein shall see it on the seventh day again and he shall declare him clean"?) — Because if a plague-spot in a garment remains unchanged the first week, it (the garment) is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, it is burned (see Vayikra 13:50-52). But if a plague-spot in a man remains unchanged the first week, he is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, he is declared tahor. (And if this were not clearly spelled out in 13:6, we would say that as a garment in those circumstances is burned at the end of the second week, so a man in those circumstances is to be declared tamei at the end of the second week. [And we would understand "And the Cohein shall declare him clean" as applying to an instance in which he was healed of the plague-spot]). It must, therefore, be spelled out in both the first week and the second week.

8) If they (i.e., the essential words) have been stated in relation to the first week (Vayikra 13:5), why need they be restated in relation to the second week (Vayikra 13:6)? (i.e., let it simply be written "And the Cohein shall see it on the seventh day again and he shall declare him clean"?) — Because if a plague-spot in a garment remains unchanged the first week, it (the garment) is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, it is burned (see Vayikra 13:50-52). But if a plague-spot in a man remains unchanged the first week, he is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, he is declared tahor. (And if this were not clearly spelled out in 13:6, we would say that as a garment in those circumstances is burned at the end of the second week, so a man in those circumstances is to be declared tamei at the end of the second week. [And we would understand "And the Cohein shall declare him clean" as applying to an instance in which he was healed of the plague-spot]). It must, therefore, be spelled out in both the first week and the second week.

8) (Vayikra 13:51) ("And he shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day. If the plague-spot has spread in the garment, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in the skin, (whatever work the skin is made for), the plague-spot is "blight-leprosy; it is unclean.") "on the seventh": I might think, seven days, either by day or by night. It is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night.

8) "pcheteth": all of it appearing to be indented. — But perhaps only second-degree (dimness) is intended! — "It" ("It is pcheteth") indicates that it is as it was before. How, then, am I to understand "pcheteth"? As connoting (all of) it appearing to be indented.

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

8) If they (i.e., the essential words) have been stated in relation to the first week (Vayikra 13:5), why need they be restated in relation to the second week (Vayikra 13:6)? (i.e., let it simply be written "And the Cohein shall see it on the seventh day again and he shall declare him clean"?) — Because if a plague-spot in a garment remains unchanged the first week, it (the garment) is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, it is burned (see Vayikra 13:50-52). But if a plague-spot in a man remains unchanged the first week, he is quarantined; and if it remains unchanged the second week, he is declared tahor. (And if this were not clearly spelled out in 13:6, we would say that as a garment in those circumstances is burned at the end of the second week, so a man in those circumstances is to be declared tamei at the end of the second week. [And we would understand "And the Cohein shall declare him clean" as applying to an instance in which he was healed of the plague-spot]). It must, therefore, be spelled out in both the first week and the second week.

8) I might think that it were not (tamei) unless both white hair and michyah obtained; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:11) "It (the michyah) is old leprosy." It (the michyah itself) is tamei, and it requires no further adjunct.

(Lev. 13:1–2:) < THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON, SAYING: > WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST >…. Why does it not say: SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, just as it says in all the < other > sections,³²In the Pentateuch the expression is found in Exod. 14:2, 15; 25:2; 31:15; Lev. 4:2; 7:23, 29; 12:2; 18:2; 23:2, 10, 24, 34; 25:2; 27:2; Numb. 5:22; 6:2; 9:10; 15:2, 18, 38; 33:51; 35:10. [instead of: WHEN ANYONE HAS]?³³Tanh., Lev. 4:7. The midrash points out that this commandment is universal and not only for the children of Israel. In what follows the Holy One shows a concern for all creatures. Cf. Enoch Zundel in his commentary on the parallel passage (Tanh., Lev. 4:7), according whom the Holy One, not being one WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, did not did not delight in citing the children of Israel for evil. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS; EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. Because the verse says (in Is. 46:10) {THE ONE WHO SAYS} [SAYING]: MY PLAN SHALL COME TO PASS, AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE; whoever hears this verse, says: perhaps there is tyranny on high. R. Tanhuma bar Abba said: What is the meaning of AND I WILL ACCOMPLISH ALL MY DESIRE? That he does not desire to convict any creature, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11): [THAT I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED.] Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. What is the meaning of EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU? R. Johanan said: David said to the Holy One: Sovereign of the World, if you desire to acquit, who will protest your authority? (Eccl. 8:4:) FOR A KING'S WORD IS SUPREME, AND WHO MAY SAY TO HIM: WHAT ARE YOU DOING? It is customary, when a < local > ruler sits in judgement and wants to acquit or convict, for him to be afraid of one greater than himself, lest they put in an appeal³⁴Enqeliton, from the Gk.: ekkleton (“appeal”) or egkleton (“accusation”). to the imperial legate.³⁵Lat.: comes; Gk.: komes. An imperial legate is afraid of a governor;³⁶Gk.: eparchos (“governor”) or huparchus (“viceroy”). a governor is afraid of the king; the king is afraid of you; but you, if you desire to acquit or convict, of whom are you afraid? (Ps. 5:5): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE (YGWR) WITH YOU. This expression (YGWR) can only be an expression of fear. Compare what is said (in Deut. 9:19): FOR I WAS AFRAID (from YGWR) OF ANGER AND RAGE.

(Lev. 14:2:) THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER. < The verse > speaks about Israel, when they were in Jerusalem and when Jeremiah said: Repent; but they did not repent. So what did the Holy One do? He afflicted them with leprosy, as stated (in Is. 3:17): THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION. SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:2): < WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH > A SWELLING OR A SORE (SPH)…. ²⁹PRK 17:6.

(Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” This text is related (to Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness. [This verse is] to teach you that the Holy One, blessed be He, does not delight in convicting a person, as stated (in Ezek. 33:11), “As I live, says the Lord, it is not My delight for the wicked to die.” In what does He delight? In vindicating (rt.: tsdq) His people. Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:21), “The Lord was delighted because of His [servant's] vindication (tsdq)…,”⁴⁰This is the interpretation of the midrash and of the new JPS translation. [i.e.] because of His people's vindication (tsdq)] and not [their] conviction. So also you find that in the case of the first Adam, when he created him, He set him in the Garden of Eden. Then He gave him a command and said to him, “Eat this, but do not eat from this, for (according to Gen. 2:17) ‘on the day that you eat from it, you shall surely die.’” [When] he transgressed, he brought a sentence⁴¹Gk.: apophasis. upon himself. [And then] the Sabbath came, and He acquitted him.⁴²Heb.: pinnahu. This word means “removed him” as well as “acquitted him.” In other words, Adam’s acquittal meant that his sentence was reduced from death to removal from the Garden. So M. Pss. 92:3. He began to talk with him [about] whether he would repent. It is so stated (in Gen. 3:9), “The Lord God called unto Adam and said, ‘Where are you?’” [This means, “What is your state?”] The Lord can only mean the quality of mercy, as stated (in Exod. 34:6), “The Lord, the Lord is a merciful and gracious God.” For him He had the quality of mercy precede the quality of strict justice. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness,” in that He does not delight in convicting a person. He began to talk with him, as stated (in Gen. 3:11-12), “Who told you that you were naked? Then the man said, ‘The woman….’” He left Adam alone and began to talk with the woman, as stated (in vs. 13), “Then the Lord God said to the woman….” But when He came to the serpent He did not talk with him. Instead He immediately gave him a sentence, as stated (in vss. 14–15), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this …. I will put enmity between you [and the woman]….’” [Then] He returned to the woman and said to her (in vs. 16), “I will greatly multiply your pain in pregnancy.” And when He returned to the man, He did not convict him. Rather He intimated to him that he should repent. Where is it shown? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi, “When He said to him (in vs. 19), ‘By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, [until you return …].’ ‘You return’ can only be mean repentance, since it is stated (in Hos. 14:2), ‘Return O Israel, to the Lord your God, as you have stumbled in your iniquity.’” When [Adam] did not repent, He expelled him from the Garden of Eden, as stated [(in Gen. 3:24), “And He drove out the man.” Ergo I would say (in Ps. 5:5), “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness.” What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.), “evil may not abide with You.” R. Tanhuma bar Hanila'i in the name of R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Johanan, “Before the Holy One, blessed be He, stand only angels of peace and angels of mercy, but the angels of wrath are far from Him. It is so stated (in Numb. 14:15), ‘the Lord, of long patience.’ Do we not already know that He is of long patience? But rather what is the meaning of He is ‘of long patience?’ That the angels of wrath are far from Him, as stated (in Is. 13:5), ‘They come from a far land from the end of the heavens, even the Lord and the weapons of his wrath.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Johanan said, “If you do not pursue evil, evil will not pursue you, nor will it dwell with you. Ergo, (Ps. 5:5, cont.), ‘evil may not abide with You,’ as ‘abide with You,’ can only mean dwelling, as stated (Exodus 2:48), ‘And if a stranger dwells with you.’” Another interpretation (of Ps. 5:5, cont.), “evil may not abide with You”: R. Eleazar ben Pedat said in the name of R. Johanan, “The name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not mentioned in connection with evil but only in connection with good.” You know that it is so. When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the light and the darkness and gave them names, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with the light but did not mention His name in connection with the darkness.⁴³Gen. R. 1:6. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 1:5), “And God called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” Behold, it mentioned His name with the light; but when it comes to the dark it doesn’t say, “and God called the darkness night,” but “He called [the darkness] night.” So also you find that, when He created Adam and Eve, [Scripture] mentioned His name in connection with them, as stated (in Gen. 1:28), “Then God blessed them…”; but when He cursed them, it did not mention His name in connection with them. [Thus it is stated] (in Gen. 3:16-17), “And unto the woman He said […]. And unto Adam He said.” Now if you say [that] behold, [Scripture] mentioned [His name] in connection with the serpent when He cursed him, since it is written (in Gen. 3:14), “So the Lord God said unto the serpent, ‘Because you have done this, more cursed shall you be’”; the sages have taught thus: The Holy One, blessed be He, has mentioned His name in connection with three things, even though they stood for evil: In connection with the inciter, i.e., the serpent, since he incited the woman and said (in Gen. 3:5), “’For God knows that on the day that you eat from it, your eyes shall be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil,’ like Him. Just like He created His world, you [two] will be able to create worlds like Him. [But He doesn’t want this,] as every artisan hates his fellow [artisan].” So because he incited her and spoke slander, [Scripture] mentions His name in connection with [the serpent]. In connection with one who transgresses the words of the sages, as is stated (in Jer. 11:3), “Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘Cursed is the one who does not heed the words of this covenant.’” In connection with one who puts his trust in flesh and blood, as stated (in Jer. 17:5), “Thus says the Lord, ‘Cursed is the man who trusts in a human being, who makes flesh his strength and whose heart turns from the Lord.’”
So also you find in the case of Noah, [that Scripture used (God’s) name] when he blessed his sons, as stated (in Gen. 9:26), “And he said, ‘blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem…;’” but when he cursed Canaan, [Scripture did not mention the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, in connection with him], as stated (in vs. 25), “And he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan….’” So also you find in the case of Elisha the prophet, that when the king of Aram came to fight against Israel, he consulted with his servants and made pits [to trap] them. He said, “When Israel comes to fight against us, they will fall into the pits,” as stated (in II Kings 6:8-9), “When the king of Aram was fighting against Israel, [he consulted with his servants, saying, ‘My camp shall be in such and such a place.’ But the man of God sent unto the king of Israel [saying], ‘Take care [not to pass this place, because the Aramaeans are camping there.]’” So the Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing (according to Amos 3:7) without having revealed His purpose unto His servants the prophets. When Israel passed by once and twice without falling in, the king of Aram took notice and said to his servants (in II Kings 6:11), “Will you not tell me which of us is for the king of Israel?” His servants said to him (in vs. 12-14), “’[It is because] Elisha, the prophet that is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words which you speak in your bedroom.’ So he said, ‘Go and see [where he is, so that I can send and seize him,’ and it was told to him, saying, ‘Behold he is in Dothan.’ Then he sent horses and chariots and a heavy force there.” Immediately Elisha’s youth rose and saw that horses, riders and a force encircled the city. Immediately he cried out (in vss. 15-16), “and said [unto him], ‘Alas, my Lord, what shall we do?’ Then he said, ‘Fear not, for there are more with us than with them.’” Immediately Elisha prayed and mentioned the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in vs. 17), “Then Elisha prayed and said, ‘Lord, please open his eyes and let him see’; so the Lord opened the eyes of the servant and he saw, and there was the hill full of fiery horses and chariots round about Elisha!” Immediately Elisha arose and cursed the Aramaeans (in vs. 18), and he said, “’Please smite this nation with a blinding light’; so He smote them with a blinding light according to the word of Elisha.” Now [Scripture] did not mention the name, but when [Elisha] prayed over them again for their eyes to be opened, he said (in vs. 20), “O Lord, open the eyes of these men that they may see.” Ergo, the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, is mentioned in connection with good, but not with evil. So also you find that when the prophet saw the four chariots that were compared to the four kingdoms (that would rule over Israel), [it states (in Zech. 6:1),] “and I lifted my eyes, and behold, four chariots were coming out between the two mountains….” But when it spoke about the redemption, [it states (in Zech. 2:3),] “Then the Lord showed me four smiths.” So also you find that when the five angels of destruction came to destroy Jerusalem, as stated (in Ezek. 9:2), “And here were six persons coming by way of the upper gate [which faces north, each with his weapon of destruction in his hand]”; Gabriel was sent with them, as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork.’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim and scatter them over the city,” as it is written (in Ezek. 10:2), “Then He spoke unto the person clothed in linen and said, ‘Go in among the wheelwork [under the cherub, and fill your hands with coals of fire from among the cherubim, and scatter them over the city].’”⁴⁴Cf. below, Lev. 8:5. Gabriel came and stood at the wheel. The cherub said to him, “What do you desire?” He said to him, “Thus and so has the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded me.” He said to him, “Take [them].” He said to him, “You put them in my hand.” Immediately (according to Ezek. 10:7), “Then the cherub stretched out his hand from among the cherubim [unto the fire that was among the cherubim…].” R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon ben Johay, “If the coals had not been cooled off [while passing] from the hand of a cherub to the hand of Gabriel, there would not have remained of the enemies of Israel (a euphemism, meaning Israel) a [single] survivor or refugee.”⁴⁵Yoma 77a. For more details, see Lam. R. 1:13 (41). So the Holy One, blessed be He, wanted to do what was evil, not by Himself, but through an angel. In the age to come, however, He will do what is good by Himself, as stated (in Ezek. 36:25), “I will sprinkle pure water upon you….” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “For You are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not abide with You.” What is the meaning of (Ps. 5:5) “and evil may not abide with You?” [It is] that [Scripture] does not cause the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, to rest upon evil, except for two [evil] sayings upon which the Holy One, blessed be He, did cause His name to rest. These are the following: (The first one is Dan. 9:14:) “So the Lord watched over evil and brought it upon us, because the Lord our God is righteous.” Was it because the Lord our God is righteous (tsaddik), that He brought the evil? It is simply that the Holy One, blessed be He, was charitable (tzekekah) to us when He first brought about the exile to Babylon of Jeconiah before the exile of Tsidikiyah. And what was charitable? That He first brought about the exile of Jeconiah to Babylon along with the artisans, the smiths, and all the valiant men. Now [those] descended to Babylon and they established a [framework] for Torah [study]. For if it had not happened like that, the Torah would have been forgotten in the exile. It is simply that those who believed in the words of Jeremiah went forth with the Torah. [They included (according to II Kings 24:16)] “a thousand artisans and smiths.” What is the meaning of “artisans (hrsh)?”⁴⁶Git. 88a; Sanh. 38a; Yalqut Shim‘oni, Dan., 1066. When they opened with words of Torah, all [present] became as those who are (deaf-)mute (hrsh). [And what is the meaning of] “smiths (rt.: sgr)?” After they closed (rt.: sgr) it, there was no one in all Israel who was able to open it. Ergo (in Dan. 9:14), “because the Lord our God is righteous.” So He acted justly during that exile in that He watched over it, and He still performed a great kindness for Israel [with reference to that exile]. How? In [the month of] Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does [Scripture] say (in Ezek. 24:1-2), “[Then the word of the Lord came unto me in the ninth year of the tenth month on the tenth day of the month, saying,] ‘Son of man, write down the name of the day, [this very day;] on this very day [the king of Babylon laid siege to Jerusalem].’” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He said, “If they go forth now in the cold, they will die.” What did He do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13), “I will utterly gather them, says the Lord.” "Gather" ('sp) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Micah 2:12), “I will gather Jacob, all of you.” Hence, this too was a great kindness. Now, the second [evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One, blessed be He] is (Ezek. 9:4:) “And the Lord said unto him, ‘Pass through the midst of the city, [through the midst of Jerusalem and mark (the letter) taw⁴⁷The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. on the foreheads of those people who moan and groan over all the abominations] ….’” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Gabriel, “Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them.” [The] prosecution⁴⁸Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, blessed be He, [and said to him], “Master of the world, how do the former differ from the latter?” He said to it, “The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked.” It said to Him, “It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest.” He said to it, “It was revealed and known to Me that, if they had protested, [the sinners] would not have accepted their [protest].” It said to Him, “Master of the world, if it was revealed and known in front of You, was if revealed in front of them? Hence they should have protested against them and demeaned themselves for the sanctification of Your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured [them].” So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6), “I gave my back to the smiters and my cheeks to the tearers of hair.” And [so with] the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) He spoke again to the angels of destruction, “[Kill off] old folk, youth ….” This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One, blessed be He, mitigated His wrath [by striking out] against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11), “The Lord has completed (klh) His wrath.” For if He had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (klyh). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with You,” because the Holy One, blessed be He, does not cause His name to rest upon evil. So also even in the case of the wicked of Israel, He allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When He came to the offerings, He said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2), “Speak unto the Children of Israel and say unto them, ‘When one of you presents an offering to the Lord,’” [i.e.] “from Israel” and not from the idolaters. However, when He came to mention leprosy spots, He said (in Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has,” only saying “anyone.” Ergo (in Ps. 5:5), “and evil may not abide with you.”

9) From here they ruled: There are twenty-four limb tips in a man which (because they cannot be observed in one sighting) do not become tamei by reason of michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:10): the finger tips of hands and feet, the ear tips, the nose tip, the membrum tip, and the breast tips in a woman. R. Yehudah says: also those of a man. R. Elazar says: Yevuloth, dildulim, and masmeroth (types of warts) are not tamei by reason of michyah (because they cannot be observed in one sighting).

9) If in the end all Jews are included (for inspection), why is it written "of his sons, the Cohanim"? To teach that the pronouncement of "tumah" and "taharah" must be made by a Cohein. How is this effected? An Israelite sage inspects the plague-spots and says to the Cohein, even if he himself is unversed (in their inspection): Say "tamei," and he says "tamei"; say "tahor," and he says "tahor." Variantly: What is the intent of "or to one of his sons, the Cohanim"? Because it is written (Devarim 21:5): "And by their word (that of the Cohanim) shall every contention and every plague-spot be (ruled upon)" — Contentions are hereby compared to plague-spots. Just as plague-spots are adjudicated in the daytime, so, contentions are to be adjudicated in the daytime.

9) (Vayikra 13:23) ("And if the bahereth remains in its place — if it has not spread — then it is the peel of the boil, and the Cohein shall declare him tahor.") (lit.) "And if under it the bahereth stands — if it has not spread." It spreads (for purposes of conferring tumah) to the place under it (i.e., the boil). It does not spread (for such purposes) to the skin of the flesh (around it) or to the skin of a burn (alongside it). "the peel": Its place must be compact and distinct. "the Cohein shall declare him tahor": He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt. How so? Two came to a Cohein (for inspection); one, with a bahereth the size of a garis; the other, (with a bahereth) the size of a sela. At the end of the week, the size in both is a sela and more. Both are tamei. Even if they recede to a sela in both, they are both tamei — until they recede to the size of a garis. In this connection it is written "and the Cohein shall declare him tahor." He declares tahor what is a certainty and not what is in doubt.

9) If he were confirmed through white hair, and the white hair disappeared and then returned; and, similarly, through a spreading: at first inspection, at the end of a week, after exemption — where he was confirmed through a spreading and the spreading disappeared and then returned — and, similarly, through white hair, at the end of a week and after exemption — in respect to all of these instances, it is written (the redundant) "if it has spread, spread." Why is "leprosy" written three times (in respect to "a burn," (once here and twice in 13:25)? "leprosy" — It requires the size of a garis (a Cilician bean); "leprosy" — to render what is stated in respect to a se'eth applicable to a bahereth, and what is stated in respect to a bahereth applicable to a se'eth; "leprosy" — to render what is stated in respect to a boil applicable to a burn, and what is stated in respect to a burn applicable to a boil. Why is "it" written three times (once here and twice in 13:25)? "it" — it (a burn, unlike a skin plague-spot) is not rendered tamei by the eruption of a michyah, at first inspection, at the end of a week (of quarantine), and after exemption. "it" — to exclude the spreading of bohak (white scurf) at the end of a week or after exemption. "it" — it has no fifth shade (aside from the four indicated). (And a fourth possible derivation:) "it" — boil and burn do not combine with each other.

9) I might think it does not confer tumah in the place of the bahereth, but that a bahereth does confer tumah in head or beard. It is, therefore, written "It is a nethek" — the only tumah of head or beard is that of nethek (and not that of bahereth).

9) From here they ruled: There are twenty-four limb tips in a man which (because they cannot be observed in one sighting) do not become tamei by reason of michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:10): the finger tips of hands and feet, the ear tips, the nose tip, the membrum tip, and the breast tips in a woman. R. Yehudah says: also those of a man. R. Elazar says: Yevuloth, dildulim, and masmeroth (types of warts) are not tamei by reason of michyah (because they cannot be observed in one sighting).

9) "and there is no black hair in it, then he shall quarantine the nethek," but if there was (black hair) in it, he is exempt. — But perhaps the meaning is that in the absence of black hair he is to be quarantined, and in its presence, he is tamei! — This cannot be,) for (Vayikra 13:37) "And in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it … he is tahor" indicates that black hair is a sign of taharah in a nethek. How, then, am I to understand "and there is no black hair in it, etc."? (As meaning that) if there was (black hair), he is exempt. "then the Cohein shall quarantine the nega of the nethek for seven days.": This is the first quarantine.

9) "And if the nethek shall spread … after his cleansing": This tells me of (his status) after his exemption. Whence do I derive that the same applies also at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week? From (the redundant) "spread, spread."

9) "and there is no black hair in it, then he shall quarantine the nethek," but if there was (black hair) in it, he is exempt. — But perhaps the meaning is that in the absence of black hair he is to be quarantined, and in its presence, he is tamei! — This cannot be,) for (Vayikra 13:37) "And in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it … he is tahor" indicates that black hair is a sign of taharah in a nethek. How, then, am I to understand "and there is no black hair in it, etc."? (As meaning that) if there was (black hair), he is exempt. "then the Cohein shall quarantine the nega of the nethek for seven days.": This is the first quarantine.

9) "and its hair has not turned white, then he shall quarantine" — the black hair does not detract (from the required tumah size of the bahereth, for which reason he must be quarantined). The disciples asked R. Yossi: If there were a bahereth with black hair in it, do we suspect that it detracts from its (required tumah) size of a garis? He answered: If there were a bahereth with white hair in it do we suspect that it detracts from its size of a garis! (Why, then, should we suspect so for black hair?) The disciples: If they said so for white hair, which is a sign of tumah, should we say so for black hair which is not a sign of tumah? R. Yossi: In an instance of ten white hairs, where only two are signs of tumah, do we suspect that the remaining ones detract from the bahereth's (required tumah) size of a garis? The disciples: No, but that may be so with white hair, which is of the kind that becomes tamei. Would you say the same for black hair, which is not of the kind that becomes tamei? R. Yossi: Even black hair turns into the kind which becomes tamei, and, (if this does not suffice for you), it is written "and its hair has not turned white, then he shall quarantine" — the black hair does not detract (from the required tumah size of a garis). "then the Cohein shall quarantine the plague-spot for seven days" — to begin with.

9) And whence do I derive for inclusion (in "Unclean!") others (and not only lepers) who are tamei? From (Vayikra 21:44) "He shall declare him unclean" and (Vayikra 21:45) "and 'Unclean,' etc." I would then include only the gravely tamei (such as zavim and zavoth, where the tumah issues from their bodies. Whence would I derive (the same for) the lesser temai'im, such as those who are tamei through a dead body or through cohabitation with a niddah, and all the others? From "He is tamei; he shall declare him unclean," and "and 'Unclean,' etc."

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

9) "Then the Cohein shall declare him clean; it is a mispachath,": even though its appearance did not change (i.e., even if it did not leave the category of the four appearances, but only changed from its appearance to a different one.) I might think (that it is a mispachath) even if it (part of the garis) left (after he was declared tahor) and returned. It is, therefore, written "it is a mispachath" (and not a returned garis). What should be done with it? R. Yehudah says: It is to be inspected as in the beginning, and the sages rule it to be tahor.

9) "if the plague-spot has spread": This refers to a spreading adjacent (to the plague-spot), any amount (of spreading in this instance conferring tumah). And whence do we include (as conferring tumah a spreading which is) distant (from the plague-spot)? From "in the garment" (i.e., anywhere in the garment.)( I might think that any amount (of such a distant spreading would confer tumah.) It is, therefore, (to negate this) written here "plague-spot," and elsewhere (in respect to flesh leprosy) "plague-spot." Just as the plague-spot there must be (a minimum of) a garis, so, the plague-spot here must be (a minimum of) a garis.

9) "in its karachath": This refers to frayed (garments); "or in its gabachath": This refers to new (garments) — whence they ruled: sagus (a very thick cloak) on which a plague-spot appears — R. Eliezer b. Yaakov says: Until it appears in its weaving and its tufts.

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

9) If so, why are (both) "white hair and michyah" written (and not "or michyah")? To teach that the michyah is not tamei unless it has space for both.

(Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.” It is difficult for the Holy One, blessed be He, to reach out His hand against this man.⁴⁹Cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather He forewarns a person [and afflicts his house] first and then He strikes him, as stated (in Lev. 14:34), “And when I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” First, He strikes his house. [If] he repents, fine; but if not, He strikes his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” [If] he repents, fine; but if not, [they come] upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.”

(Lev. 13:2:) WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH…. This text is related (to Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE.³⁷In the biblical context THAT ONE is the nation of the Chaldeans. This verse is speaking about the first Adam, about Pharaoh, about Edom, [about Sennacherib, about Nebuchadnezzar,] and about the children of Adam < in general >.³⁸Tanh., Lev. 4:8; cf. Lev. R. 18:2. How does it concern the first Adam? When the Holy One created {the world with} the first Adam, R. Abba bar Kahana said: He created him in his likeness, as stated (in Gen. 1:27): AND GOD CREATED THE HUMAN (adam) IN HIS OWN IMAGE…. He created him < to extend > from the one end of world to the other, as stated (in Deut. 4:32): SO PLEASE ASK ABOUT THE FORMER DAYS WHICH CAME BEFORE YOU, EVER SINCE THE DAY THAT GOD CREATED ADAM UPON THE EARTH, EVEN FROM ONE END OF HEAVEN TO THE OTHER.³⁹Cf. Gen. R. 8:1. Now he ruled over the whole earth, as stated (in Gen. 1:28): < FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT; > AND RULE OVER THE FISH OF THE SEA … It also says (in Gen. 9:2): MOREOVER, THE DREAD OF YOU AND THE FEAR OF YOU SHALL BE UPON EVERY BEAST OF THE EARTH. It is therefore stated (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL. This refers to the first Adam.⁴⁰The present translation ignores Buber punctuation. Following his punctuation, the translation would read: “It is therefore stated (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE (Ibid., cont.:) AND DREADFUL. This refers to the first Adam….“ (Ibid., cont.:) HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIMSELF.⁴¹The midrash requires such a literal translation. In the biblical context a more normal translation would read with reference to the Chaldeans: THEIR JUSTICE AND THEIR DIGNITY PROCEED FROM THEMSELVES. This refers to Eve, since she came out of him and caused him to die, [as stated] (in Gen. 3:6): THEN SHE ALSO GAVE SOME TO HER HUSBAND, AND HE ATE. [And where is it shown that she came out of him? Where it is so written (in Gen. 2:23): BONE OUT OF MY BONE AND FLESH OUT OF MY FLESH, < THIS ONE SHALL BE CALLED WOMAN, BECAUSE SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN >.] Ergo (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE. [Another interpretation of] TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL IS THAT ONE. This refers to Pharaoh, when he was world ruler,⁴²Gk.: Kosmokraton. as stated (concerning him in Ps. 105:20): THE RULER OF PEOPLES RELEASED HIM (i.e., Joseph). (Hab. 1:7, cont.): HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIMSELF. This refers to Moses, since he was reared within that one's house, so that he believed that he < actually > was a child of his house, as stated (in Exod. 2:10): WHEN THE BOY HAD GROWN UP, SHE BROUGHT HIM TO PHARAOH'S DAUGHTER; AND HE BECAME HER SON. Then he arose and brought ten plagues upon him, as stated (in Exod. 3:10): [SO COME NOW, I WILL SEND YOU UNTO PHARAOH.] (Exod. 4:17): AND YOU SHALL TAKE IN YOUR HAND THIS ROD, < WITH WHICH YOU SHALL PERFORM THE SIGNS. R. Judah said: The rod had a weight of forty seahs and was < made > of sapphire⁴³Gk.: sappheirinon, an adj. meaning “of sapphire,” or “of lapsis lazuli.” It also had ten plagues (makkot) inscribed upon it with the acronym⁴⁴notarikon. DTsK 'DSh B'HB.⁴⁵D = dam (“blood”), Ts = Tsefardia‘ (“frogs”), K= kinnim (“gnats”), ‘ = ‘arov (“flies”), D = dever (“cattle pestilence”), Sh = shehin (“boils”), B = barad (“hail”), ‘ = ‘arbeh (“locusts”), H = hoshekh (“darkness”), B = bekhorot (“first-born”). Then Moses, when he had looked at the rod and seen the punishment (makkah) which had been appointed to come, brought it upon Pharaoh. Ergo (in Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL < IS THAT ONE >.

(Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.” It is difficult for the Holy One, blessed be He, to reach out His hand against this man.⁴⁹Cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather He forewarns a person [and afflicts his house] first and then He strikes him, as stated (in Lev. 14:34), “And when I put a plague of leprosy in a house of the land you possess.” First, He strikes his house. [If] he repents, fine; but if not, He strikes his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47), “When the plague of leprosy is in a garment.” [If] he repents, fine; but if not, [they come] upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2), “When a man has on the skin of his flesh.”

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

How is it shown < that leprosy comes > for idolatry? In that, when they made the calf, they were afflicted with leprosy. Thus it is stated (in Exod. 32:25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua'); and it is written concerning the leper (in Lev. 13:45): HIS HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua').
And how is it shown < that leprosy comes > for blessing (i.e., cursing) the name? From Goliath, of whom it is stated that he said in (I Sam. 17:8): CHOOSE A MAN ('ish) FOR YOURSELVES. Now man ('ish) can only be the Holy One, since it is stated (in Exod. 15:3): THE LORD IS A MAN ('ish) OF WAR. It is also written (in I Sam. 17:46) THIS DAY < THE LORD > WILL DELIVER (rt.: SGR) YOU. Now deliverance can only imply leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:5) THE PRIEST SHALL ISOLATE (rt.: SGR) HIM.
And < how is it shown > for unchastity? Where it is written (in Is. 3:16–17): < BECAUSE THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION ARE HAUGHTY, AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES…; THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS < OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION >.³⁴Vs. 17 differs from the Masoretic Text by replacing the divine name with Adonay (LORD) and by spelling SPH with a samekh instead of a sin. It is also written (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE (rt.: SPH) AND FOR A BRIGHT SPOT.
< How is it shown > for theft and for swearing falsely? Where it is stated (in Zech. 5:4): I HAVE SENT IT (i.e., the curse of the flying scroll in vs. 1) FORTH, SAYS THE LORD {GOD} [OF HOSTS]; AND IT SHALL COME UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE THIEF AND UNTO THE HOUSE OF THE ONE WHO SWEARS FALSELY IN MY NAME; AND IT SHALL LODGE WITHIN HIS HOUSE; AND IT SHALL CONSUME IT, [EVEN] WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES. What is a thing which consumes timbers and stones? See, it says this is leprosy, since it is written (concerning a house infested with leprosy in Lev. 14:45): AND IT (i.e., the plague)³⁵In the biblical context IT would normally be translated as HE and refer to the one responsible for tearing down an infested house, but the midrash understands the plague itself as that which destroys the house. SHALL BREAK DOWN THE HOUSE WITH ITS TIMBERS AND STONES.
And < how is it shown > for slander? From Miriam [of whom it is written (in Numb. 12:10): AND THERE WAS MIRIAM WITH LEPROSY LIKE THE SNOW; SO WHEN AARON TURNED UNTO MIRIAM, THERE SHE WAS, STRICKEN WITH LEPROSY.] It also says (in Lev. 14:1): THIS SHALL BE THE LAW OF THE LEPER (hametsora'), < i.e. > the one who puts forth evil (hamotsi ra').
And < how is it shown > for those who bear false witness? Where Israel testified over the Holy One and said (in Exod. 32:4): THESE ARE YOUR GODS, O ISRAEL. They were afflicted with leprosy, since it is written (below in vs. 25): NOW MOSES SAW THAT THE PEOPLE WERE RIOTOUS (parua').³⁶Cf. above in this section, where parua‘ in this verse is related to Lev. 13:45, according to which the leper’s HEAD SHALL BE UNKEMPT (parua‘).
And < how is it shown > for the judge who perverts justice? Where it is stated (of unjust judges in Is. 5:24): AND IT SHALL BE THAT AS A TONGUE OF FIRE CONSUMES STRAW, AND AS CHAFF SINKS DOWN IN A FLAME, THEIR {BLOSSOM} [ROOT] SHALL BE LIKE THE ROT, AND THEIR {ROOT} [BLOSSOM] SHALL RISE UP LIKE THE DUST; FOR THEY HAVE REJECTED THE LAW OF THE LORD OF HOSTS AND SPURNED THE WORD OF THE HOLY ONE OF ISRAEL. THEIR BLOSSOM (PRH) can only refer to leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:12): IF THE LEPROSY SHOULD BLOSSOM OUT WIDELY (rt.: PRH).
And < how is it shown > for one who enters a domain which is not his? From Uzziah, when he entered the domain of the priesthood. It is so stated (of him in II Chron. 26:16, 19): < …; HE SINNED AGAINST THE LORD HIS GOD AND ENTERED INTO THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD TO OFFER INCENSE UPON THE ALTAR OF INCENSE…. > THEN LEPROSY APPEARED ON HIS FOREHEAD.
And < how is it shown > for one who instigates quarrels among brothers? Where it is stated (in Gen. 12:17): THEN THE LORD AFFLICTED PHARAOH < … >, because he had taken Sarah from Abraham.

[Another interpretation] (of Hab. 1:7): TERRIBLE AND DREADFUL. This refers to the human race, which rules over all which the Holy One has created in his world. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 8:7 [6]): YOU HAVE SET HIM AS RULER OVER THE {WORK} [WORKS] OF YOUR HANDS…. (Hab. 1:7, cont.:) HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIM. Thus when he sins, he brings upon himself torments from his < own > body. Why? Because his ways are not like the ways of flesh and blood. When < a person of > flesh and blood wants to punish his slaves, he brings {kneaders} [whips] and fetters, to punish them and cause them pain; but the Holy One is not like that. Rather it is from a person's whole body that he punishes and beats him. {Thus it is stated (in Hab. 1:7, cont.): HIS JUSTICE AND HIS DIGNITY PROCEED FROM HIM.} [From where is it shown? From what we have read on the matter (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY, HE SHALL BE BROUGHT UNTO AARON THE PRIEST >…. ]

10) Just as contentions (are to be adjudicated) not by kin, plague-spots, too, not by kin. — But perhaps just as contentions by three (judges), plague-spots, too, by three! And, what is more, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If money matters (are adjudicated) by three, how much more so must (matters affecting) his "body" be (adjudicated) by three! It must, therefore, be written "or to one of his sons, the Cohanim" — only one inspects the plague-spots.

10) "and he shall declare him unclean": "him," and not one who tears the tumah signs out of his plague-spot before he comes to the Cohein. R. Akiva said: I asked R. Gamliel and R. Yehoshua going to Nadvad: (If he did so) in the midst of his quarantine what is the halachah? They answered: We have not heard it. But we did hear that (if he did so) before coming to the Cohein he is tahor; after his confirmation, he is tamei. I began to bring them proofs why it is that before he came to the Cohein he is tamei. It is not because the Cohein did not see the tumah signs, (for even if he did see them but did not pronounce him tamei, he is tahor). Even (if he did so) in the midst of his quarantine, he is tahor until the Cohein pronounces him tamei. Variantly: They said to me: You have said well. When does he (one who tore out his tumah signs after his confirmation) become tahor? R. Elazar says: when he develops another plague-spot and is cleared of it, (this indicating that the first nega, too, would have healed, as this one did.) The sages say: when it (the second nega) sprouts (and covers) all (the skin or the first nega; see 13:12), or when his plague-spot diminished in size to less than a garis (before he cut the tumah signs, in which instance he does not become tamei in the first place.)

10) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through yellow hair, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) a spreading in the beginning (before the quarantine), at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if the nethek shall spread." Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed through a spreading, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) yellow hair, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, and after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if spread it shall spread."

10) (Vayikra 13:46) ("All the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. Solitary shall he sit. Outside the camp is his dwelling.") "the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean": Not the days that he had a bahereth (see Vayikra 13 verse 13:2) and it was cut off. I might think (that he is not penalized) even if he cut it off deliberately; it is, therefore, written (in this regard) "all the days." When is he cleansed (of this bahereth)? R. Eliezer says: When a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it. The sages say until it (the plague) blossoms in all of him.

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

10) "and he shall wash his clothes": so that he not (render things) tamei (by entering a house). "and he is clean": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. "and he shall wash his clothes": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "and if it shall spread, etc." he is tamei."

10) In sum: An adjacent spreading (confers tumah) in any amount; a distant spreading, with (the size of) a garis; a recurring spreading (i.e., a reappearance after the plague-spot has been cut out of the garment), with a garis.

10) (Vayikra 13:56) "And if the Cohein saw, and, behold, the plague-spot became dim after it was washed": second-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to green), or third-degree dimness (e.g., deep green to neutral)? It is, therefore, written "and, behold, the plague-spot became dim" (i.e., even though it is dim, it is still called "plague-spot." — If "plague-spot," I might think that it retained its original appearance (but just changed color [e.g., from deep green to deep red]); it is, therefore, written "and, behold, it became dim." How so? (It changed from) first degree to second degree, and not to third degree.

10) (Vayikra 13:58) ("And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or any article of skin that you shall wash, and the plague-spot depart from them, then it shall be cleansed (i.e., immersed) a second time and it shall be clean.") "And the garment … that you shall wash": I might think (if not for "and the plague-spot depart") that it is sufficient to perform the mitzvah of washing (and that it need not be rubbed thoroughly); it is, therefore, written "and the plague-spot depart" (i.e., to the end that it depart or that it dim to the third degree [and if he sees that it does not depart, it is quarantined for a second seven days]). If only "and it depart" were written, I might think from this side to the other side; it is, therefore, written "from them" — until it is entirely uprooted from them.

10) "and he shall wash his clothes": so that he not (render things) tamei (by entering a house). "and he is clean": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. "and he shall wash his clothes": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "and if it shall spread, etc." he is tamei."

10) I might then think that (the meaning was space for) white hair on one side and for michyah on the other side (i.e., space for four hairs); it is, therefore, written "within the se'eth" — surrounded by the se'eth.

(Lev. 13:2:) WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH…. This text is related (to Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. < This verse is able > to teach you that the Holy One does not delight in convicting a person,⁵²Tanh., Lev. 4:9. as stated (in Ezek. 18:32): FOR I DO NOT DELIGHT IN THE DEATH OF ONE WHO DIES. In what does he delight? In vindicating (rt.: TsDQ) his people. [Thus it is stated (in Is. 42:21): THE LORD WAS DELIGHTED BECAUSE OF HIS < SERVANT'S > VINDICATION (TsDQ)…,⁵³This is the interpretation of the midrash and of the new JPS translation. < i.e. > because of his people's vindication (TsDQ)] and not < their > conviction. So also you find that in the case of the first Adam, when he created him, he set him in the Garden of Eden. Then he gave him a command and said to him: Eat this, but do not eat from this, FOR (according to Gen. 2:17) ON THE DAY THAT YOU EAT FROM IT, YOU SHALL SURELY DIE. < When > he transgressed, he brought a sentence⁵⁴Gk.: apophasis. upon himself. < Then > the Sabbath came, and he acquitted him.⁵⁵Heb.: pinnahu. This word means “removed him” as well as “acquitted him.” In other words, Adam’s acquittal meant that his sentence was reduced from death to removal from the Garden. So M. Pss. 92:3. He began to talk with him < about > whether he would repent? It is so stated (in Gen. 3:9): THE LORD GOD CALLED UNTO THE HUMAN. THE LORD can only mean the quality of mercy, as stated (in Exod. 34:6): THE LORD: THE LORD IS A MERCIFUL AND GRACIOUS GOD. For him he had the quality of mercy precede the quality of strict justice. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS, in that he does not delight in convicting a person. He began to talk (in Gen. 3:11–12): WHO TOLD YOU < THAT YOU WERE NAKED? DID YOU EAT FROM THE TREE >…? THEN THE MAN SAID: THE WOMAN…. He left Adam alone and began to talk with the woman, as stated (in vs. 13): THEN THE LORD GOD SAID TO THE WOMAN…. But when he came to the serpent he did not talk with him. Instead he immediately gave him a sentence, as stated (in vss. 14–15): SO THE LORD GOD SAID UNTO THE SERPENT: BECAUSE YOU HAVE DONE THIS, < MORE CURSED SHALL YOU BE THAN ALL THE CATTLE, THAN ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD >…. I WILL PUT ENMITY < BETWEEN YOU AND THE WOMAN >…. < Then > he returned to the woman and said to her (in vs. 16): I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY YOUR PAIN IN PREGNANCY. And when he returned to the man, he did not convict him. Rather he intimated to him that he should repent. Where is it shown? R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Levi that he said to him (in vs. 19): BY THE SWEAT OF YOUR BROW SHALL EAT BREAD, UNTIL YOU RETURN < … >. YOU RETURN can only be an expression for repentance, since it is stated (in Hos. 14:2 [1]): RETURN O ISRAEL, < TO THE LORD YOUR GOD >. When < Adam > did not repent, he expelled him from the Garden of Eden, as stated [(in Gen. 3:24): AND HE DROVE OUT THE MAN. Ergo] (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): FOR YOU ARE NOT A GOD WHO DELIGHTS IN WICKEDNESS. What is the meaning of (ibid., cont.): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. R. Tanhuma bar Hanila'i in the name of R. Berekhyah said in the name of R. Johanan: Before the Holy One stand only angels of peace and angels of mercy, but the angels of wrath are far from him. It is so stated (in Is. 13:5): THEY COME FROM A FAR LAND FROM THE END OF THE HEAVENS, EVEN THE LORD AND THE WEAPONS OF HIS WRATH, TO RAVAGE THE WHOLE EARTH. [Another interpretation] (of Ps. 5:5 [4], cont.): EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU. R. Johanan said: If you do not pursue evil, evil will not pursue you, nor will it dwell with you.

(Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh.” Why do the plagues come?⁵⁰Cf. Lev. R. 17:3. Because of harlotry. And so you find in Jerusalem, that because they were absorbed in harlotry, they were afflicted with leprosy. What is written there (in Is. 3:16)? “Moreover, the Lord said, ‘Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with extended neck [and roving eyes] ….’” What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do to them? He struck them with leprosy, as stated (in vs. 17), “And the Lord will smite with sores (sph) the scalps of the daughters of Zion.” Smite with sores (sph) must mean "with leprosy," since it is stated (with reference to leprosy in Lev. 13:2), “a swelling or a sore (rt.: sph) […].” Hence it says (Lev. 13: 2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh a swelling or a sore (rt.: sph) […. (Lev. 13:2), “When anyone has on the skin of his flesh a swelling or a sore or a bright spot, and it becomes… the plague of leprosy.”] The verse is speaking about [the four] empires.⁵¹Lev. R. 15:9. The swelling (s't) represents Babylon, since it is stated (in Is. 14:4), “And you shall take up (ns't) this song of scorn against the king of Babylon….” The sore (rt.: sph) represents Media, because Haman conspired (rt.: sph) with Ahasuerus (Esth. 3:18), “to devastate, kill, and destroy.” The bright spot represents the Greek empire, because it “lorded” it (rt.: bhr) over Israel and said, “Whoever has an ox, let him write on the horns of the ox that he has no share in the God of Israel.” ⁵²So also Lev. R. 15:9; Gen. R. 2:4; cf. 16:4. And if [they did] not [do so], they would sentence them to death. The plague of leprosy represents the empire of Edom (i.e., of Rome), because the Holy One, blessed be He, afflicted it and its guarding angel with leprosy, as stated (in Jer. 46:15), “Why has abbireka been washed away? Because the Lord has pushed him away.”⁵³See Tanh. (Buber), Exod. 3:19, and the note there. In the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, shall sit in judgment over the empire of Edom. He will say to them, “Why did you oppress My children?” They will say, “Was it not You that delivered them into our hands?” Then the Holy One, blessed be He, will say to them, “Because (to paraphrase Is. 47:6) I delivered them into your hands, did you [see fit to] not show them mercy?” [Instead (according to Is. 47:6, cont.),] “upon the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy.” This [aged one] is Rabbi Aqiva, whom the empire oppressed, [the empire] which has no end.⁵⁴Gen. R. 13:5. Another interpretation (of Is. 47:6, cont.), “upon the aged you made your yoke exceedingly heavy”: Because they made their yoke as heavy on the aged as upon the youth. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Babylon, “By your life, I am sitting over you in judgment to judge you and convict you.” Thus it is stated (in Is. 47:1), “Come down and sit upon the dust, O maiden daughter of Babylon; sit on the earth, not a throne.” Since she formerly sat upon a throne, now [she is told,] “Sit on the earth, not a throne; (Is. 47:1, cont.) for you shall no more be called [tender and delicate].” What shall I do to you? I will exact retribution from your guarding angel first and smite him with leprosy. Then after that, I will exact retribution from you. You should not say, “On this empire [only]”; but even upon Gog, since he vaunts himself upward in the world. I will smite him with leprosy, as stated (in Zech. 14:12) “And this shall be the plague [with which the Lord will smite all the peoples who have warred against Jerusalem]: their flesh shall rot away while they stand on their feet.” For what reason? Because they engaged in battle with Israel. And so is it stated (Zech 14:12), “and this shall be the plague,” because they came against Israel. And do not be surprised, as behold the Lord exacts heavy retribution in leprosy from those who hate them even in this world. And who was [such a one]? This was Naaman, of whom it is stated (in II Kings 5:1), “Now Naaman, the commander of the army of the king of Aram…; but the man, though a valiant warrior, was a leper.” For what reason was he a leper? Because he had taken a little girl captive from the Land of Israel. In this world He struck the idolaters with leprosy. And also in the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, will afflict them with leprosy, as stated (in Zech. 14:12), “And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will smite ….” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “Because you have called my children unclean, I am making you unclean with a great uncleanness through leprosy.” Where is it shown that they called Israel unclean? Where it is stated (in Lam. 4:15) “Away, unclean, they cried at them….” [So] you will be leprous and impure, but Israel, I will sanctify, purify, and redeem them from among you, as stated (in Is. 62:12), “And they shall call them the holy people, the redeemed of the Lord; and you shall be called, sought out, a city not forsaken.” So also King Solomon has said (in Cant. 4:7), “You are beautiful all over, my beloved, and there is no blemish in you.”

R. Nehorai taught: "The generation in which the son of David will come, the young will expose the old to public shame, and the old will rise [in token of respect] before the young; a daughter will rebel against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, the leaders of the generation will have the nature of dogs, and a son will not be ashamed when reproached by his father." We are taught in a Baraitha: R. Nehemiah says: "The generation in which ben David will come, insolence will increase, respect will be missing, the vine will give forth its fruit abundantly; nevertheless wine will be dear, and all the governments will be turned to the Minuth, and no admonition will avail." This is in accordance with R. Isaac, who said that ben David will not come unless all governments will be turned over to Minuth. Raba said: "Where is the passage for it?" (Lev. 13, 13) It is all turned white, he is clean. Our Rabbis were tought: (Deut. 32, 36-37) For the Lord will espouse the cause of his people, and bethink himself concerning his servants: When he seeth that their power is gone, and the guarded and fortified are no more, i.e., Ben David will not come until the informers will increase. According to others, until the pockets will be empty of a perutah. And some others also say unless they will renounce their hope to be redeemed, as it is said, And the guarded and fortified are no more. This is in accordance with R. Zera who found the Rabbis occupying themselves with the question of the Messiah, and he said to them, "I beg of you, do not cause the event to be removed further than it is, as there is a Baraitha that the following three come unexpectedly: Messiah, a discovery and a bite of a serpent.

11) How so? Space for two hairs on its (the michyah's) right and two hairs on its left, and thus above and below — squared; in all, (space for) thirty-six hairs — the body of the bahereth (with the michyah in its midst) thus being found to be (the size of) a Cilician garis squared. "living flesh": and not a boil; "living flesh": and not white scurf. "within the se'eth": and not within a boil; "within the se'eth: and not within white scurf.

11) And whence is it derived that yellow hair which returns after the exemption is tamei? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out (the status of) the yellow hair; (he is tamei.")

11) They said in the name of R. Yishmael: "Blight leprosy" is written of garments, and "blight leprosy" is written of houses. Just as with garments, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week, so with houses, remaining the same and spreading in the second week was equated with spreading in the first week. (Vayikra 13:43) "after the house has been scraped and after it has been plastered": What is the intent of this? (i.e., it is known that there is no removing without scraping and plastering.) For I might think that there is no returning (of the plague-spot) and razing except after spreading in the first week. Whence do I derive for inclusion returning (of the plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week (that both require removing, scraping, and plastering, and, if it returns thereafter, razing)? From (Vayikra 13:43) "after he removed the stones …" Let it not be written "after scraping" and "after plastering." Is there removing without scraping and plastering? Why, then, is it mentioned? To include a returning (plague-spot) after spreading in the second week and after remaining the same in the second week.

11) R. Elazar said: R. Eliezer and the sages do not differ that if he cut it off and he cut off healthy flesh with it, (desiring to root it out entirely), that there is never any cleansing for him, and that if he cut it off and left over something of it that he is cleansed if it blossoms in all of him. Where do they differ? If he cut it off completely (without cutting off any healthy flesh with it.) R. Eliezer says: (He is cleansed of the bahereth) when a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it, and the sages say: when it blossoms in all of him.

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

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

11) This tells me (that he is tamei) only (if it spreads in) its (original) appearance. Whence do I derive the same for (its spreading) not in its (original) appearance? From "spread it shall spread" (— in any event).

11) "blight leprosy": Invest it with a blight and derive no benefit from it. This tells me only of a confirmed plague-spot. Whence do I derive the same for a quarantined plague-spot? From (the redundant) "blight-leprosy." If so, then just as with a confirmed garment, if he (cut it into pieces smaller than the minimum size for tumah and) made sponges of them, they remain tamei, and no benefit may be derived from them, so (the same rule should apply to) a quarantined garment. It is, therefore, written "the plague-spot is blight-leprosy; it is unclean," and not a confirmed garment (in the above instance).

11) "then it shall be cleansed a second time and it shall be clean": the second (i.e., this cleansing), to cleanse it from tumah (i.e., ritual immersion); the first, (in verse 54), to quarantine the plague-spot (if it does not depart).

11) How so? Space for two hairs on its (the michyah's) right and two hairs on its left, and thus above and below — squared; in all, (space for) thirty-six hairs — the body of the bahereth (with the michyah in its midst) thus being found to be (the size of) a Cilician garis squared. "living flesh": and not a boil; "living flesh": and not white scurf. "within the se'eth": and not within a boil; "within the se'eth: and not within white scurf.

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

(Lev. 14:34:) WHEN YOU COME INTO THE LAND < OF CANAAN…, AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS >. How has the land sinned, that it should be afflicted?⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 5:4. It is simply that the land is afflicted for human sin, as stated (in Ps. 107:33–34): < HE TURNS…; > A FRUITFUL LAND INTO A SALT MARSH BECAUSE OF THE EVIL OF THOSE WHO DWELL IN IT. For what reason did suffering come into the world? Because of the people, so that they would look, consider, and say: Whoever sins is afflicted, and whoever does not sin is not afflicted. So why are the trees, the stones and the walls afflicted? So that their owners will look < at them > and repent. And so you find that when Israel sinned, the Holy One intended to exile them. The Holy One said: If I exile them at the start, they will become a shame and a disgrace to all the nations. What did he do? He brought Sennacherib the Wicked upon all the < other > nations and exiled them. Thus it is stated (in Is. 10:14): MY HAND (the hand of Sennacherib) HAS FOUND THE WEALTH OF THE PEOPLES LIKE A NEST. It is also written (in vs. 13): AND I (Sennacherib) HAVE REMOVED THE BORDERS OF PEOPLES. The Holy One said: When Israel sees that I have exiled the nations of the world, they will repent and fear my judgment. It is so stated (in Zeph. 3:6–7): I HAVE ROOTED OUT THE NATIONS; THEIR CORNER TOWERS ARE DESOLATE…. AND I SAID: SURELY YOU WILL FEAR ME… ! When they did not repent, they immediately went into exile. Therefore the Holy One warns them and first afflicts their houses, so that they will repent. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. For him to repent is preferable; but if not, one is afflicted in his body, as stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH…. {Therefore, the stones are afflicted at first.} For him to repent is preferable; but if not, his clothes are afflicted, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. Then if he does not repent, he is afflicted in his body. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 13:40): WHEN SOMEONE'S HEAD BECOMES HAIRLESS < SO THAT HE IS BALD, HE IS CLEAN >; but still with a balding of the head there is a substantial doubt whether he is unclean or clean. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with boils, as stated (in Lev. 13:18): AND WHEN ONE HAS BOILS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH [AND IS HEALED].⁴⁷The verses that follow explain that the boils may then become leprous. For him to repent is preferable, but if not, he is afflicted with five scourges {i.e., blows}: Swelling, sore, bright spot, scab, and plague spot. And why all this? Because he did not repent.⁴⁸Numb. R. 14:4. {The Holy One} [Scripture] has said (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS]. The Holy One said: Before I created the human, I prepared all these things for him. < The situation > is comparable to an evil slave who was sold. His < new > master went to buy him. Since he knew about him being an evil slave, he took along chains and whips so that, if he rebelled, he might subdue him with them. When he did rebel, he brought out the chains and chained him. He brought out the whips and beat him. The slave said to him: Did you not know that I was an evil slave? Why did you buy me? He said to him: Because I knew that you were an evil slave, I prepared chains and whips for you, so that if you rebelled, I might subdue you with them. Also before the Holy One, blessed be his name, created the human one, he prepared afflictions for him, because (according to Gen. 8:21) he knows THAT⁴⁹Heb.: Ki. Although in the biblical context the word must mean “for,” or its equivalent, the midrash understands the word with the alternate meaning of “that.” THE INSTINCT OF ONE'S HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He therefore prepared all these things for him, as stated (in Prov. 19:29): JUDGMENTS ARE READY FOR SCOFFERS; [AND STRIPES FOR THE BACK OF FOOLS].

9) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:18): "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed," and (Vayikra 13:24): "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire, etc." — Now boil and burn were in the category of all plague-spots (see Vayikra 13:2, etc.) (for apparently no distinction should be made between whether or not the plague-spot is on the site of a boil or a burn), and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement thereof (i.e., white hair, a sign of uncleanliness), they departed thus for leniency and not for stringency — that they not be affected by michyah (another uncleanliness sign of the general category), and that one week of quarantine suffice (in an instance of the plague-spot remaining in its place and not spreading — as opposed to the two-week requirement of the general category).

9) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:18): "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed," and (Vayikra 13:24): "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire, etc." — Now boil and burn were in the category of all plague-spots (see Vayikra 13:2, etc.) (for apparently no distinction should be made between whether or not the plague-spot is on the site of a boil or a burn), and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement thereof (i.e., white hair, a sign of uncleanliness), they departed thus for leniency and not for stringency — that they not be affected by michyah (another uncleanliness sign of the general category), and that one week of quarantine suffice (in an instance of the plague-spot remaining in its place and not spreading — as opposed to the two-week requirement of the general category).

9) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shehu ke'inyano, yatza lehakel velo lehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement thereof, departed for leniency and not for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:18): "And flesh, if there be in it, in its skin, a boil, and it be healed," and (Vayikra 13:24): "Or flesh, if there be in its skin a burn by fire, etc." — Now boil and burn were in the category of all plague-spots (see Vayikra 13:2, etc.) (for apparently no distinction should be made between whether or not the plague-spot is on the site of a boil or a burn), and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement thereof (i.e., white hair, a sign of uncleanliness), they departed thus for leniency and not for stringency — that they not be affected by michyah (another uncleanliness sign of the general category), and that one week of quarantine suffice (in an instance of the plague-spot remaining in its place and not spreading — as opposed to the two-week requirement of the general category).

12) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through a spreading, and the spreading left, and then it returned — and, similarly, (through) white hair and michyah (see Vayikra 13:24) — whether in the end of the first week, the end of the second week, or after his exemption (from tumah) — that he reverts to his original status (of tumah)? From "and if spread it shall spread."

12) And whence is it derived that yellow hair confers tumah without a spreading and a spreading confers tumah without yellow hair? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out the yellow hair; he is tamei."

12) "solitary shall he sit": This tells me only of this one alone. Whence do I derive the same for other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "He is tamei; solitary shall he sit."

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

12) Whence is it derived that if (after remaining the same at the end of the first week and having been quarantined for a second week), it (was found to have) dimmed in the second week or disappeared (entirely), he peels (the site of the spot) and he requires birds (for its cleansing)? From (Vayikra 13:49) "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, etc." This is one house … — whence they ruled: There are ten houses (in this connection): If it dims in the first week or disappears, he peels it and it is tahor (clean). If it dims in the second week or disappears, he peels it and he requires birds. If it spreads in the first week, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returns, he razes (the house). If it does not return, he requires birds. If it remained the same in the first week and spread in the second week, he removes, scrapes, and smears, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds. If it remained the same both the first week and the second, he removes, scrapes, and plasters, and is given an additional week. If it returned, he razes; if not, he requires birds.

12) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through a spreading, and the spreading left, and then it returned — and, similarly, (through) white hair and michyah (see Vayikra 13:24) — whether in the end of the first week, the end of the second week, or after his exemption (from tumah) — that he reverts to his original status (of tumah)? From "and if spread it shall spread."

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

12) (Vayikra 13:59) ("This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy, in a garment of wool or linen, or in the warp, or in the woof, or in any article of skin, to declare it clean or to declare it unclean.") "This is the plague-spot of leprosy, etc.": (Vayikra 14:54) ("This is the law for all plague-spots or leprosy and for a nethek (Vayikra 14:55) and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house.") They (plague-spot garments) are being likened to a house, viz., Just as a house is rendered unclean by the entry (of an unclean person), so it is rendered unclean by the entry of all (plague-spot garments). — But perhaps just as a house requires birds (for its cleansing, [viz. Vayikra 14:49]), so all (plague-spot garments) should require birds (for their cleansing)! It is, therefore, written "This" (i.e., only in this respect [that of "entry"] are they similar, and not in the other.) Rebbi says: It is written "This is the law for all plague-spots of leprosy and for a nethek and for the leprosy of a garment and of a house." Just as a house renders unclean by entry, so all are rendered unclean by entry. This tells me only of a garment. Whence do I derive all of them (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) for inclusion? From "This is the law of the plague-spot of leprosy … in the warp or in the woof, etc." Just as a garment renders unclean by entry, so all (i.e., warp and woof, etc.) render unclean by entry. — But perhaps just as a garment is rendered unclean by all that are tamei (e.g., sheratzim, semen, etc.), so all (warp and woof etc.) are rendered unclean by all that are tamei! It is, therefore, written "This" (and not the others).

So he acted justly during that exile in that he watched over it, and he still performed a great kindness for < Israel > with reference to that exile. How? In < the month of > Tebet they were scheduled to go into exile from Jerusalem, for so does < Scripture > say (in Ezek. 24:1–2): < THEN THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME UNTO ME IN THE NINTH YEAR OF THE TENTH MONTH ON THE TENTH DAY OF THE MONTH, SAYING >: SON OF ADAM, WRITE DOWN THE NAME OF THE DAY, [THIS VERY DAY;] ON THIS VERY DAY THE KING OF BABYLON LAID SIEGE TO JERUSALEM. What did the Holy One do? He said: If they go forth now in the cold, they will die. What did he do for them? He waited for them and sent them into exile during the summer.⁶³This sentence follows the parallel in Tanh., Exod. 4:9. The Buber text, which reads: “He waited for them during the summer and sent them into exile,” makes little sense. This is what the prophet says (in Jer. 8:13): I WILL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM, SAYS THE LORD. "Destroy" ('SP) can only mean "exile," since it is stated (in Zeph. 1:2): I WILL REMOVE ('SP) ALL THINGS < FROM THE FACE THE EARTH >…. Now, the second < evil saying associated with the name of the Holy One > is (Ezek. 9:4:) AND THE LORD SAID UNTO HIM: PASS THROUGH THE MIDST OF THE CITY, THROUGH THE MIDST OF JERUSALEM AND MARK < THE LETTER > TAW⁶⁴The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet. For various interpretations of its meaning, see the parallel version in Shab. 55a. ON THE FOREHEADS OF THOSE PEOPLE < WHO MOAN AND GROAN OVER ALL THE ABOMINATIONS >…. The Holy One said to Gabriel: Go and write an ink taw upon the foreheads of the righteous, so that the angels of destruction will have no dominion over them. Then upon the foreheads of the wicked write a blood taw so that the angels of destruction will have dominion over them. < The > prosecution⁶⁵Gk.: kategoria, i.e., “accusation,” “charge.” Here the concept is hypostatized as a separate being. came in before the Holy One, [it said to him]: Sovereign of the World, how do the former differ from the latter? He said to it: The former are completely righteous, and the latter are completely wicked. It said to him: It was in their power to protest, but they did not protest. He said to it: It was revealed and known to me that, if they had protested, they would not have accepted their < protest >. It said to him: Sovereign of the World, how does the one group differ from the other. After all, it was in their power to demean themselves for the sanctification of your name and take beatings from Israel upon themselves, just as the prophets endured < them >. So look at how many woes Jeremiah suffered from Israel; also Isaiah, of whom it is written (in Is. 50:6): I GAVE MY BACK TO THE SMITERS…., and the rest of the prophets. Immediately (in Ezek. 9:6) he spoke again to the angels of destruction: [KILL OFF] OLD FOLK, YOUTH, MAIDENS, SMALL CHILDREN, AND WOMEN, < BUT DO NOT TOUCH ANYONE WHO BEARS THE TAV UPON HIMSELF >. This also was a kindness, in that the Holy One {interceded with} [mitigated] his wrath against Jerusalem, as stated (in Lam. 4:11): THE LORD HAS COMPLETED (KLH) HIS WRATH. For if he had not done so, all Israel would have received a verdict of destruction (KLYH). Ergo (in Ps. 5:5 [4]): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU, because the Holy One does not cause his name to rest upon evil. So also in the case of Israel, he allotted them glory and did not mention them for evil. When he came to the offerings, he said to Moses (in Lev. 1:2): SPEAK UNTO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN ONE OF YOU PRESENTS AN OFFERING TO THE LORD, < i.e. > OF YOU, and not the peoples of the world. However, when he came to mention leprosy spots, he said (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < … >. It does not say: "One of you," but WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Ergo (in Ps. 5:5): AND EVIL MAY NOT ABIDE WITH YOU.

And his offering: one silver bowl (Numbers 7:13). Behold it is written (Song of Songs 4:7) "You are all beautiful, my love, and there is no blemish in you" - this is speaking of Israel. Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai taught: at the time that Israel stood before Mount Sinai to accept the Torah, there were no blind people among them, nor deaf, nor mentally incapable, nor mutes, nor lame, nor limping. At that moment it says, "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you." -- until they sinned with the calf, and among them were made zavim and metzoraim, as it says (Exodus 32:25) "And Moshe saw the people, that they were scattered [פרוע]", and it is also written (Leviticus 13:45) "As for the person with a leprous affection, their clothes shall be rent, their head shall be wild [פרוע],". At that moment, it says (Numbers 5:2) "Send out from the camp every tzarua and every zav". But before Mount Sinai, they were whole, as it says "You are all beautiful, my love, there is no blemish in you". Another opinion: "All of you is beautiful, my love" speaks of the tribes. And if you say, how can all of them be beautiful? For Ya'akov their father blessed the tribes, and chided Reuven, Shimon, and Levi. How can you say they "you are all beautiful"?! Rabbi Elazar says, even though he blessed the later tribes and chided the former tribes, even so he returned and blessed them, as it says (Genesis 49:28) "These are the tribes of Israel, twelve..." -- he made them nourished from each other. What is (Genesis 49:28) "And he blessed them, each according to his own blessing"? When he blessed them, he returned and blessed them again -- rather, it teaches that when Ya'akov our father blessed his children, he would compare them to animals. He compared Yehuda to a lion; "Yehuda is a lion's whelp..." (Genesis 49:9). He compared Dan to a snake; "Dan shall be a snake..." (Genesis 49:17). He compared Naftali to a hind; "Naftali is a hind let loose..." (Genesis 49:21). Binyamin to a wolf; "Binyamin is a ravenous wolf..." (Genesis 49:27). Even though this is so, he returned and called all of them lions, all snakes, all hinds, all wolves. You can know that this is so, since behold Dan was called a snake, and he returned and called him a lion; "Dan is a lion's whelp..." (Deuteronomy 33:22). So you learn that he returned and included Reuven, Shimon, and Levi in the blessing of their brothers, to uphold that which is written; "you are entirely beautiful, my love". And so the verse returns and counts Reuven, Shimon, and Levi individually in the book of Exodus, and does not count the others. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemya and the rabbis [offer alternaive explanations for this]. Rabbi Yehuda says, this is why Reuven, Shimon, and Levi were counted individually: since all the tribes did not guard their lineage in Egypt, and Reuven and Shimon and Levi guarded their lineages, thus their lineages are enumerated there. Rabbi Nechemya says, all the tribes worshipped star-worship in Egypt, and tre tribes of Reuven, Shimon, and Levi did not worship star-worship; thus they merited to be counted alone. And the rabbis say, all the tribes did not act with authoority/leadership [?] in Egypt, but Reuven, Shimon, and Levi acted with leadership in Egypt,. Reuven died and leadership was given to Shimon, Shimon died and it was given to Levi. Levi died and they wished to give it to Yehuda, and a Bat Kol went out and said, "Leave it, until its time comes!" When did it's time come? After the death of Yehoshua (Judges 1:1-2) "And it was after the death of Joshua that the Israelites inquired... and God said, Yehuda will go up". Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Chanin: one says "Therefore, it returned and related these three tribes, because their father had chided them." The other says, "because their lineage relates to Moshe and Aharon". And we do not know which of them said this and which of them said this, since it's from what Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda son of Rabbi Simon in the name of Rabbi Chanin in the name of Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzchak. "The ear that listens to the reproof of life abides among the wise" (Proverbs 15:31) -- this is Rabbi Chanin, who said, because he chided them. And because they accepted the reproof of their father, they merited to be ennumerated beside Moshe and Aharon. For this reason, it says "You are entirely beautiful, my love...". Another interpretation, "you are entirely beauutiful, my love..." according to Yirmiyahu, who said (Jeremiah 6:30) "They are called 'rejected silver'..." and Yechezkel called them dross; "O mortal, the House of Israel has become dross to Me" (Ezekiel 22:18). Zechariah came and said, "I saw, and behold, a menorah... entirely [כֻּלָּהּ] of gold.." (Zechariah 4:2), to fulfil that which is written, "all of you [כֻּלָּךְ] is beautiful, my love". Another interpreation; "you are entirely beautiful, ...": this is speaking of the princes of the tribes at the time that they brought forth for the dedication of the altar. They did not bring all together on one day, rather each and every one on individual days, as like that which is written "One prince each day" (Numbers 7:11). Could it be that the one who brought his offerings first was most beloved?! Yehuda who brought his offerings first was most beloved of all? So Rabbi Chelbo said; with all the tribes it is written "his offering", and with the prince of Yehuda it is written "and his offering" - and this is strange! He who offered first it is written of him, "and his offering" - it did not need to sppeak thus, rather of the first "his offering" and the rest "and his offering". And why is this so? Rabbi Brechya haCohen son of Rabbi said, since Yehuda ofered first, if he had come to pride himself over his brothers and say "I am more honoured than you, since I offered first", they would respond to him and say, "you are he who offered last, for thus it says 'and his offering'!" This made him lesser [and brought him down] to his brothers, and so: "all of you is beautiful".

10) kol davar shehaya bichllal veyatza min hakllal lit'on to'an acher shelo ke'inyano, yatza lehakel ulehachmir. (Anything which was subsumed in a general category, and departed from that category for a particular requirement foreign to it, departed both for leniency and for stringency.): (Vayikra 13:29): "And a man or a woman — if there be in him a plague-spot in the head or in the beard, etc." — Now head and beard were in the general category of skin and flesh, and when they departed from that category for (special mention of) a particular requirement (for uncleanliness) foreign to that category (white hair being a sign of uncleanliness in the category, and yellow hair, in the "departure"), they departed both for leniency and for stringency. For leniency — that they not be affected by white hair; for stringency — that they be affected by yellow hair.

13) And whence is it derived that in instances of nethakim a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined, and that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed? From "the Cohein shall not 'seek out' (by recourse to the above) the yellow hair — he is (already) tamei."

13) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in sitting solitary) nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From "he shall be unclean. He is unclean; solitary shall he sit." I might think that two temai'im [zav and one who is tamei by a dead body] (who are classed with him [viz. Bamidbar 5:2]) may sit with him. It is, therefore, written "solitary shall he sit" — the two (other) temai'im may not sit with him.

13) I might think that the spreading imparts tumah in the beginning, (before the quarantine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "after he has shown himself to the Cohein." I might think that if the Cohein sees it spreading (the first time he sees him), he should address himself to it (in the context of the laws of spreading); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "for his cleansing" — He does not address himself to it (the spreading) until he sees him (for the purpose of bringing him) from a state of tumah to a state of taharah (i.e., the second time he sees him, as opposed to the first time, when he is not yet in a state of tumah). (Vayikra 13:7) "then he shall show himself a second time to the Cohein.": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died (in the interim), a different Cohein sees him.

13) "to render it clean and to render it unclean": Just as it (the law of plague-spots) is a mitzvah in Eretz Yisrael, so it is a mitzvah outside Eretz Yisrael. "to declare it clean or to declare it unclean": Just as it is a mitzvah to declare it clean, so it is a mitzvah to declare it unclean. "to declare it clean or to declare it unclean": The Cohein who declares it clean declares it unclean, and if he dies, a different Cohein inspects it.

13) I might think that the spreading imparts tumah in the beginning, (before the quarantine); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "after he has shown himself to the Cohein." I might think that if the Cohein sees it spreading (the first time he sees him), he should address himself to it (in the context of the laws of spreading); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:7) "for his cleansing" — He does not address himself to it (the spreading) until he sees him (for the purpose of bringing him) from a state of tumah to a state of taharah (i.e., the second time he sees him, as opposed to the first time, when he is not yet in a state of tumah). (Vayikra 13:7) "then he shall show himself a second time to the Cohein.": The Cohein who sees him the first time sees him the second time; and if he died (in the interim), a different Cohein sees him.

(Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. It is difficult for the Holy One to reach out his hand against a human being.⁶⁶Tanh., Lev. 4:10; cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather he forewarns a person and afflicts his house, as stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, it afflicted his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, < comes > upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >.

(Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. It is difficult for the Holy One to reach out his hand against a human being.⁶⁶Tanh., Lev. 4:10; cf. Lev. R. 17:4. Rather he forewarns a person and afflicts his house, as stated (in Lev. 14:34): AND WHEN I PUT A PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IN A HOUSE OF THE LAND YOU POSSESS. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, it afflicted his clothes, as stated (in Lev. 13:47): WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. < If > he repents, fine; but if not, < comes > upon his body, as stated (in Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >.

14) (Vayikra 13:37) ("And if in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it, then the nethek has been healed; he is clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.") "And if in his eyes": This tells me only of his (the Cohein's) own eyes. Whence do I derive for inclusion the eyes of his son or the eyes of his disciple? From "And if in his eyes" (and not necessarily the Cohein's eyes) the nethek has remained the same. "hair": the minimum of hair — two. "black": This tells me only of black hair. Whence do I derive the same for green or red hair? From "and hair." "sprouted in it": though it not be surrounded within it. This tells me only of (hair) remaining in the beginning (viz. Vayikra 13:31) and sprouting in the end. Whence do I derive the same for sprouting in the beginning and remaining in the end? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) "and hair" (Vayikra 13:31) - "and hair" (Vayikra 13:37).

14) (Vayikra 13:37) ("And if in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it, then the nethek has been healed; he is clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.") "And if in his eyes": This tells me only of his (the Cohein's) own eyes. Whence do I derive for inclusion the eyes of his son or the eyes of his disciple? From "And if in his eyes" (and not necessarily the Cohein's eyes) the nethek has remained the same. "hair": the minimum of hair — two. "black": This tells me only of black hair. Whence do I derive the same for green or red hair? From "and hair." "sprouted in it": though it not be surrounded within it. This tells me only of (hair) remaining in the beginning (viz. Vayikra 13:31) and sprouting in the end. Whence do I derive the same for sprouting in the beginning and remaining in the end? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) "and hair" (Vayikra 13:31) - "and hair" (Vayikra 13:37).

14) "outside the camp": outside the three camps (the camp of the Shechinah, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of Israel). "his dwelling": his dwelling (i.e., where he sits or stands [and not where he merely passes through]) is tamei. From here they ruled: If the tamei stood under the tree and the tahor passed by there, he is tamei. If the tahor stood under the tree and the tamei passed by there he is tahor, and if he stood there he is tamei. And thus with a (leprosy-) afflicted stone. (If its carrier passed under the tree, one standing under it is) tahor. And if he placed it down, he is tamei. R. Yossi Haglili says: "Outside the camp is his dwelling. (Bamidbar 5:47) And the garment": We are hereby taught about (leprosy-) afflicted garments that they require "sending" outside the three camps.

14) (Vayikra 13:8) ("And the Cohein shall see: If the mispachath has spread in the skin, then the Cohein shall declare him unclean. It (the mispachath) is leprosy.") This comes to teach us about the spreading that it is tamei only with four appearances, those with which the um (the original spot) becomes tamei.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH < A SWELLING OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT >. Why do the plagues come?⁶⁷Tanh., Lev. 4:11; cf. Lev. R. 17:3. Because of harlotry. And so you find in Jerusalem, that because they were absorbed in harlotry, they were afflicted with leprosy. What is written there (in Is. 3:16)? MOREOVER, THE LORD SAID: BECAUSE < THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION > ARE HAUGHTY, < AND WALK WITH EXTENDED NECK AND ROVING EYES >…. Then it says (in vs. 17): THEREFORE THE LORD WILL SMITE WITH SORES (SPH) THE SCALPS OF THE DAUGHTERS OF ZION. [SMITE WITH SORES (SPH)⁶⁸The Buber text has misspelled SPH by rendering the S sound with a samekh in place of the biblical sin. must mean "with leprosy," since it is stated (with reference to leprosy in Lev. 13:2): A SWELLING OR A SORE (rt.: SPH).]⁶⁹Here the S represents a samekh. It also says (in Lev. 14:56): FOR A SWELLING AND FOR A SORE.

15) "the nethek has been healed": If one had a nethek with yellow hair in it, he is tamei. If black hair arose in it, he is tahor. Even if the black hair leaves it, he remains tahor. R. Shimon says: Any yellow hair which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: Any nethek which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again.

12a) davar halamed me'inyano (something learned from context): (Vayikra 13:40): "And a man, if the hair of his head (from the slope of his head towards the nape [karachath]) fall out, he is kereach (bald); he is clean." I might think that he is clean of all (plague-spot) uncleanliness; it is, therefore, written (in that context, of other types of uncleanliness) (Vayikra 13:42): "And if there be on the karachath or the gabachath (temples) a reddish white plague-spot, etc." We learn from the context that he is not clean of all types, but of nethakim (scalls) alone.

12a) davar halamed me'inyano (something learned from context): (Vayikra 13:40): "And a man, if the hair of his head (from the slope of his head towards the nape [karachath]) fall out, he is kereach (bald); he is clean." I might think that he is clean of all (plague-spot) uncleanliness; it is, therefore, written (in that context, of other types of uncleanliness) (Vayikra 13:42): "And if there be on the karachath or the gabachath (temples) a reddish white plague-spot, etc." We learn from the context that he is not clean of all types, but of nethakim (scalls) alone.

15) And does this not follow, viz.: The um becomes tamei and the spreading becomes tamei. Just as the um becomes tamei only with four appearances, so the spreading becomes tamei only with four appearances.

[Another interpretation] (of Lev. 13:2): WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH A SWELLING (S'T) OR A SORE OR A BRIGHT SPOT, < AND IT BECOMES > … THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY. < The verse > is speaking about four empires.⁷⁰Tanh., Lev. 11; Lev. R. 15:9. The SWELLING represents Babylon, since it is stated (in Is. 14:4): AND YOU SHALL TAKE UP (NS'T) THIS SONG OF SCORN AGAINST THE KING OF BABYLON AND SAY…. The SORE (rt.: SPH) represents Media, because Haman conspired (rt.: SPH) with Ahasuerus to devastate, kill, and destroy. The BRIGHT SPOT represents the Greek empire.⁷¹According to the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 11, the BRIGHT SPOT (rt.: BHR) represents Greece because that empire “lorded” it (rt.: BHR) over Israel and said: Whoever has an ox, let him write on the horns of the ox that he has no share in the God of Israel.” So also Lev. R. 15:9; Gen. R. 2:4; cf. 16:4. THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY represents the wicked empire of Edom (i.e., of Rome), because the Holy One afflicted it and its prince with leprosy, as stated (in Jer. 46:15): WHY HAS ABBIREKA BEEN WASHED AWAY?….⁷²See above, Tanh. (Buber), Exod. 3:19, and the note there. In the world to come the Holy One shall sit in judgment over the wicked empire. He will say to them: Why did you oppress my children? They will say: It was you that acted, when you delivered them into our hands. Then the Holy One will say to them: Because (to paraphrase Is. 47:6) I delivered them into your hands, did you not show them mercy? Instead (according to Is. 47:6, cont.): UPON THE AGED YOU MADE YOUR YOKE EXCEEDINGLY HEAVY. This < aged one > is Rabbi Aqiva, whom the empire oppressed, < the empire > which has no end.⁷³Gen. R. 13:5.

Another interpretation: "This shall be the law for a leper" - this is what is written (Job 20:6), "If his height ascends to the heavens and his head reaches the clouds." "His height" - on high. "To the clouds" - to the clouds. "He shall perish forever like his own dung" (Job 20:7) -- just as this dung stinks, so to he stinks. "Those who have seen him will ask, 'Where is he?'" (ibid.) -- they will see him but not recognise him, since so it is written of the friends of Job (Job 2:12) "They lifted up their eyes from afar and did not recognise him." Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish [disagreed]. Rabbi Yochanan said, it is forbidden to walk within four cubits to the east of a metzora, and Rabbi Shimon said even one hundred cubits. They did not [in fact] disagree -- the one who said four cubits [referred to] a time when the wind is not blowing, and the one who said one hundred, [referred to] a time that the wind is blowing. Rabbi Meir would not eat in the offshoots of the alley of a metzora. Rabbi Amei and Rabbi Asei would not ascend to the alley of a metzora. Reish Lakish when he saw one of them was in the city, he stoned them with stones and said to them "Go to your place and do not stink up [the outside/creation]. As Rabbi Chiya taught (Leviticus 13:46) - "Alone he shall dwell" - on his own he shall dwell. Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon saw one of them and hid from them, as it is written: "This is the law of the metzora" - the one who brings out a bad name [MoTzi shem Ra]

17) "he is clean": Hillel says: This (R. Shimon's axiom above) does not hold with a nethek which arose within a nethek (after the latter had been declared tahor), it being written "he (is clean") — Only healing effects taharah. "he is clean": I might think he can get up and leave; it is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall declare him clean." If that (alone were written), I might think that if a Cohein (erroneously) declared one who is tamei to be tahor, he is clean. It is, therefore, written "clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean." (i.e., the declaration is valid only if he is really clean.) And it is in order to be enlightened on this, that Hillel went up from Bavel (to Eretz Yisrael), to consult Shemayah and Avtalyon.

16) — But why not go in this direction? viz.: White hair is a sign of tumah, and spreading is a sign of tumah. Just as white hair is tamei with all appearances of white, (even those below the brightness of the four appearances), so spreading is tamei with all appearances of white!

17) Let us see what it (spreading) most closely resembles. We derive a thing (spreading) which causes tumah in all plague-spots (those of house, garments, and men) from a thing (the um) which obtains in all plague-spots, and this is not to be refuted by white hair, which des not obtain in all plague-spots (but only in the skin of the flesh). — But why not go in this direction? viz.: We derive a thing (spreading) which is a sign of tumah, from a thing (white hair) which is a sign of tumah, and this is not to be refuted by the um, which (in itself is not a sign of tumah). It is, therefore, written "Then the Cohein shall declare him unclean; it is leprosy" — it becomes tamei only with the four appearances (of leprosy). "It (becomes tamei") — to exclude a spreading of bohak ("glistening white," not directly related to the leprosy).

This is the ordinance - As it is said verse (Job:14): Who gave (brought forth) purity to one who is impure? , such as Abraham from Terah, Hezekiah from Achaz, etc , Israel from the nations of the world, the world to come from this world. Who did so, who commanded so, who decreed it so, if not The One! (the world's only!) ....! There we learned (Parah 4:4): those who occupy themselves with the Parah from beginning to end, impurify their clothes, but it makes clothes Pure. God said: I carved a law (into the fabric of creation), a decree i made, you have no ability to transgress (override) My law!

The Holy One exacted punishment from them in Egypt and afterwards he exacted punishment from them at the sea. What is written concerning Egypt (in Exod. 12:29)? AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT <THAT THE LORD SMOTE ALL THE FIRST-BORN, FROM THE FIRST-BORN OF PHARAOH, WHO WAS SITTING UPON HIS THRONE, TO THE FIRST-BORN OF THE CAPTIVE WHO WAS IN THE DUNGEON, AND ALL THE FIRST-BORN OF THE CATTLE>. When he had killed their prince, he afterwards killed them; and so it says (in Exod. 12:12): AND ON ALL THE GODS OF EGYPT <I WILL EXECUTE JUDGMENTS>…. <Gods > of stone have rotted; <those> of silver and gold have been melted. When he had exacted punishment from their gods, he afterwards exacted punishment from them. (Exod. 15:1, cf. 21:) THE HORSE AND HIS RIDER HE HAS THROWN INTO THE SEA. This is the prince. And after that (in vs. 4): PHARAOH'S CHARIOTS AND HIS ARMY <HE HAS CAST INTO THE SEA>. Also in the case of this evil Roman Empire, when the Holy One has exacted punishment from their prince, he will afterwards exact punishment from them, just as he did to the Babylonian Empire. When he had exacted punishment from their prince, he afterwards exacted punishment from Nebuchadnezzar. It is so stated (in Jer. 51:44): I WILL ATTEND TO BEL (the prince of Babylon) IN BABYLON.⁸⁰Cf. vs. 47: I WILL DEAL WITH THE IMAGES OF BABYLON…; AND ALL ITS SLAIN SHALL FALL IN THE MIDST OF IT. And so also he does to Edom (i.e., to Rome), as stated (in Jer. 46:15): WHY HAS ABBIREKHA BEEN WASHED AWAY?⁸¹The midrash understands ABBIREKHA as a singular subject, because the Hebrew verb translated, HAS BEEN WASHED AWAY, is singular; however, it is common to follow such a singular verb with a plural subject. Thus the new JPS translation reads: WHY ARE YOUR STALWARTS SWEPT AWAY? This is their prince since he is afflicting that Abbirekha with leprosy.⁸²See below, Lev. 4:16; cf. Gen. 41:43, where “Abrech” (‘BRK) can be taken as a princely title, which according to Gen. R. 90:3 has the homiletic meaning, “Father (‘B) in wisdom and tender (RK) in years.” In the biblical context Jer. 46:15 refers to Egypt, but the midrash regards Abbirekha as intimating the prince of Edom, since according to sec. 6, above, “All the plagues which the Holy One brought upon the Egyptians he is going to bring upon Edom.” Now WASHED AWAY (rt.: SHP) can only mean leprosy, since it is stated (in Lev. 13:2): <WHEN ANYONE HAS ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH > A SWELLING OR A SORE (rt.: SPH) <OR A BRIGHT SPOT, AND IT BECOMES ON THE SKIN OF HIS FLESH THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY >…. Then afterwards he exacts punishment from it (i.e., the whole Kingdom of Edom, rt.: 'DM). It is so stated (in Jer. 46:15, cont.): BECAUSE THE LORD THRUST IT DOWN. And so it also says (in Is. 24:21): THE LORD SHALL PUNISH THE HOST OF HEAVEN IN HEAVEN; then afterwards (ibid.): AND THE KINGS OF THE EARTH (rt.: 'DM) {IN} [ON] THE EARTH (rt.: 'DM). But in the case of Israel, just as their God lives and abides forever and forevermore, so do they live and abide forever and forevermore. Thus it is stated (in Jer. 10:10): BUT THE LORD IS A TRUE GOD: HE IS A LIVING GOD AND AN EVERLASTING KING; while concerning Israel it is written (in Deut. 4:4): BUT YOU WHO CLUNG TO THE LORD YOUR GOD ARE ALL ALIVE TODAY.

Rabbi Alexandri began: “And the leper in whom there is a mark [his garments shall be rent, the hair of his head shall be grown, he shall cover his upper lip, and he shall cry: Impure, impure]” (Leviticus 13:45). “And the leper” – this is the Temple. “In whom there is a mark” – this is idol worship, which imparts impurity like a leprous mark, as it is stated: They desecrated My Temple and defiled it.⁵⁷There is no such verse, although there are several verses expressing the same idea and employing similar terminology; see, e.g., Jeremiah 7:30, 32:34; Ezekiel 5:11. “His garments shall be rent” – these are the priestly vestments. “The hair of his head shall be grown [parua]” – this is what is stated: “He laid bare the covering of Judah” (Isaiah 22:8) – exposing what was covered.⁵⁸The allusion is to the roof of the Temple, which was destroyed. The word parua can mean exposed. “He shall cover his upper lip” – once Israel was exiled from among the nations, none of them was capable of expressing a matter of Torah with his mouth. “And he shall cry: Impure, impure” – the first destruction and the second destruction.
Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta said: Anyone who knows how many years Israel engaged in idol worship knows when the son of David will come. We have three verses that support him. One, “I will reckon upon it the days of the Be’alim, to which it burned incense” (Hosea 2:15) – [meaning,] like the days of the Be’alim. Second, “It was, that just as He called and they did not heed, so they will call out and I will not heed” (Zechariah 7:13). Third, “it will be when you will say: For what did the Lord…do [all these to us? You will say to them: Just as you forsook Me and served strange gods in your land, so you will serve strangers in a land not yours]” (Jeremiah 5:19).
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, both of them addressed this. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Because [yaan uvyaan]” (Leviticus 26:43) – measure for measure.⁵⁹The doubling of the term yaan indicates that the punishment will mirror the sin, measure for measure. Reish Lakish said: “Your land, strangers devour it in your presence [lenegdekhem]” (Isaiah 1:7) – strangers shall devour it corresponding to you [kenegdekhem].⁶⁰Corresponding to the sins you have committed; for the same length of time you worshipped idols. Rabbi Alexandri learned it from this verse: “All the days that the mark is on him he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:46). Eikha!

Rabbi Alexandri began: “And the leper in whom there is a mark [his garments shall be rent, the hair of his head shall be grown, he shall cover his upper lip, and he shall cry: Impure, impure]” (Leviticus 13:45). “And the leper” – this is the Temple. “In whom there is a mark” – this is idol worship, which imparts impurity like a leprous mark, as it is stated: They desecrated My Temple and defiled it.⁵⁷There is no such verse, although there are several verses expressing the same idea and employing similar terminology; see, e.g., Jeremiah 7:30, 32:34; Ezekiel 5:11. “His garments shall be rent” – these are the priestly vestments. “The hair of his head shall be grown [parua]” – this is what is stated: “He laid bare the covering of Judah” (Isaiah 22:8) – exposing what was covered.⁵⁸The allusion is to the roof of the Temple, which was destroyed. The word parua can mean exposed. “He shall cover his upper lip” – once Israel was exiled from among the nations, none of them was capable of expressing a matter of Torah with his mouth. “And he shall cry: Impure, impure” – the first destruction and the second destruction.
Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta said: Anyone who knows how many years Israel engaged in idol worship knows when the son of David will come. We have three verses that support him. One, “I will reckon upon it the days of the Be’alim, to which it burned incense” (Hosea 2:15) – [meaning,] like the days of the Be’alim. Second, “It was, that just as He called and they did not heed, so they will call out and I will not heed” (Zechariah 7:13). Third, “it will be when you will say: For what did the Lord…do [all these to us? You will say to them: Just as you forsook Me and served strange gods in your land, so you will serve strangers in a land not yours]” (Jeremiah 5:19).
Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, both of them addressed this. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Because [yaan uvyaan]” (Leviticus 26:43) – measure for measure.⁵⁹The doubling of the term yaan indicates that the punishment will mirror the sin, measure for measure. Reish Lakish said: “Your land, strangers devour it in your presence [lenegdekhem]” (Isaiah 1:7) – strangers shall devour it corresponding to you [kenegdekhem].⁶⁰Corresponding to the sins you have committed; for the same length of time you worshipped idols. Rabbi Alexandri learned it from this verse: “All the days that the mark is on him he shall be impure” (Leviticus 13:46). Eikha!

(Bamidbar 6:5) "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): Scripture now leaves the subject of wine and comes to speak of shaving. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism": His vow (i.e., his offerings) is contingent upon his Naziritism (i.e., If he vows to be a Nazirite, then after his (period of) Naziritism he must bring his offerings), and his Naziritism is not contingent upon his vow (i.e., If he vows to bring the offering, he need not become a Nazirite.) "a blade shall not pass over his head": to equate the shaver with the shaved one (i.e., one who shaves him is liable, as is the shaved one himself). "a blade shall not pass over his head": This tells me only of a blade. Whence do I derive that he also receives forty lashes for tearing, plucking, and trimming? From "holy shall he be," in any event. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan says: Scripture speaks (only) of a blade. If he tore, plucked, or trimmed, he does not receive stripes. "until the fulfillment of the days of his Naziritism to the L-rd": Whence is it derived that if one vows to be a Nazirite without qualifying (for how long), he shaves on the thirty-first day, and if he shaved on the thirtieth day he has fulfilled his obligations? From "until the fulfillment of the day of his Naziritism to the L-rd" — and they have been fulfilled. I might think that even if he vowed a one hundred day Naziritism and he shaved on the thirty-first day he has fulfilled his obligation; it is, therefore, written "until the fulfillment of his days," and he has not yet fulfilled them. This tells me (only) of one whose (period of) Naziritism is limited. Whence do I derive (the same for) one who vowed "eternal" Naziritism (i.e., that he must be a Nazirite all of his days)? From "all the days of the vow of his Naziritism … holy shall he be." "holy shall he be": You say that this refers to holiness of (i.e., not shaving) the hair. But perhaps it refers to the holiness of the body (i.e., not to become defiled by the dead). (This is not so, for) (Ibid. 8) "He is holy to the L-rd" speaks of holiness of the body. How, then, am I to understand "holy shall he be"? As referring to holiness of the hair, "holy shall he be": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Ibid. 18) "And the Nazirite shall shave at the door of the tent of meeting," I would think that only the hair of one who shaves as prescribed is forbidden and imposes constraints. How would I know (that the same applies) if vandals shaved him? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yossi says: Why is it written "holy shall he be"? Because it is written "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head," I might think (that Naziritism obtains only) with one who has hair. Whence do I derive (that it also obtains) with one who does not have hair? From "holy shall he be" — in any event. R. Yonathan says: It is not needed (for the above), for it is written (Ibid. 7) "for the crown of his G-d is on his head" — whether or not he has hair. What, then, is the intent of "holy shall he be"? As we stated above (in respect to "eternal" Naziritism). Unqualified Naziritism is thirty days, it being written "holy shall he be ("yiheyeh"): The numerical equivalent of "yiheyeh" is thirty. "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written "a blade shall not pass over his head.") It is written (of a leper, Vayikra 14:9) "And it shall be on the seventh day that he shall shave all of his hair." This implies even a Nazirite (leper). And how would I understand "he shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head"? As applying to other Nazirites, excluding the leper. Or, perhaps, even a Nazirite (leper). It is, therefore, written "he shall let grow the locks ('pera') of the hair of his head." From here you learn of the leper, of whom it is written (Vayikra 13:45) "And his head shall be parua" that "parua" means "grown long." You say it means that, but perhaps it is to be taken literally (as meaning "uncovered.") You, therefore, reason as follows: It is written here (in respect to a leper) "parua," and elsewhere, (in respect to a Nazirite) "parua" (i.e., "pera," like "parua"). Just as there (re Nazirite), "parua" means growing the hair, so, "parua" here (re leper) means growing the hair. "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism (a blade shall not pass over his head."): (A Nazirite who shaved his head at the end of his period of Naziritism [before he brought the offering, etc.] is liable,) it being written "All the days of the vow of his Naziritism a blade shall not pass over his head" — to include the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering (as in the above-cited instance) as equivalent (for liability) to the days in the midst of his Naziritism. — But perhaps he is liable (for shaving his head) only if he does so before he completes his period of Naziritism! — (No,) it follows (that this is not so,) viz.: Since he is forbidden to drink wine and he is forbidden to shave, if I have learned about wine that the days after the termination of his period of Naziritism before the bringing of his offering were equated with the days in the midst of the period of his Naziritism, the same must be true of shaving. And, furthermore, this follows a fortiori, viz.: If re wine, the drinking of which does not void (the count of his preceding Nazirite days), the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of his offering were equated (for liability) with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period, then re shaving, which does void (the Nazirite count), how much more so should this be true! — (No,) this may be true of the drinking of wine, where no act in its category (the drinking of wine by a Nazirite) was permitted — wherefore the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period — but would you say the same for shaving, where an act in its category (the shaving of a Nazirite leper on the seventh day) was permitted — wherefore we would say that the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were not equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! — (No!) This is refuted by the instance of tumah (a Nazir's defiling himself with a dead body), where though there is an act in its category which is permitted (i.e., a Nazir's defiling himself for a meth mitzvah [one who has no kin to bury him]), still the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering were equated with the days in the midst of his Nazirite period! And this would indicate about shaving, that even though there is an act in its category which is permitted, still, the days after the Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are to be equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period. — No, this may be true of tumah, which voids the whole (previous) count, which is not so with shaving, which does not void the whole. I have not succeeded (in proving the equality) with my a fortiori argument. It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 20) "and thereafter (i.e., after bringing the offering), the Nazirite may drink wine." Now may a Nazirite drink wine? But (the idea is that) it (the word "Nazirite") is "extra" to signal a gezeirah shavah (identity), viz.: it is written here (in respect to shaving [6:5]) "nazir," and it is written elsewhere (20) "nazir" (in respect to the drinking of wine). Just as with (the "extra") "nazir" there, the days after his Nazirite period before the bringing of the offering are equated with the days in the midst of the Nazirite period, so, with shaving. (6:5) "He shall let grow the locks of the hair of his head." Why is this written? (i.e., it is already written [Ibid.] "a blade shall not pass over his head until the fulfillment of the days when he is a Nazirite to the L-rd.") From "until the fulfillment of the days," I would think that this ("fulfillment") is satisfied by a minimum of two days; it is, therefore, written "He shall let grow the hair of the locks of his head." How long does this take? Not less than thirty days. But (if he said: I will be a Nazirite) a month and above — even a month and one day or a month and two days, (he is a Nazirite for any period superadded.)

... Teach us oh, teacher: once the Ninth of Av has ended, is everything permitted? R’ Chiyah the Great taught like this: once the Ninth of Av has ended, one is permitted to do anything. Why? Because it is like the case of a person whose dead is laid out before him, who is forbidden to eat meat or drink wine. Once the dead is buried, the mourner is permitted to do so. So to on the Ninth of Av one is a mourner – once the day has ended one is permitted to do anything. Even though we are permitted, we must always have a sigh in our hearts until the Holy One returns to her. The Holy One said to them: by your lives! I burnt her, as it says “From above He has hurled fire into my bones…” (Lamentations 1:13) I will build her, as it says “Yet again will I rebuild you, then you shall be built, O virgin of Israel…” (Jeremiah 31:3) Zion said to Him: Behold, I have been sitting thus for many years! I have counted the days from old and I have not been redeemed, therefore I have despaired. She said that my master has abandoned me. And from where do we learn that Zion said this? From that which is written regarding it “And Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me.’” (Isaiah 49:14) ... Another explanation. “And Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me…” (Isaiah 49:14) What is written before this? “Sing, O heavens, and rejoice, O earth, and mountains burst out in song, for the Lord has consoled His people, and He shall have mercy on His poor.” (Isaiah 49:13) Once Zion saw that the prophet recalled His people and His poor, but did not mention Zion or Jerusalem she said ‘the Lord has forsaken me, and the Lord has forgotten me.’ Immediately the Holy One replied and said to her: just as it is impossible for a woman to forget her sucking child, so to I am not able to forget you, “Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb?” (Isaiah 49:15) She said to Him: Master of the world! How is that possible? There is no end to the evils I have done! I caused Your Holy Temple to be destroyed and I killed the prophets. R’ Berachia the Kohen said in the name of Rebbe: the Holy One said to her, I will forget your evil but I will not forget your good. “…These too shall forget, but I will not forget you.” (ibid.) I have forgotten “"These are your gods, O Israel…” (Exodus32:4) but “I am the Lord, your God…” (Exodus 20:2) I will not forget.

And it would follow a fortiori, viz.: If his money requires three, how much more so, his body! It is, therefore, written (re plague-spots, Vayikra 13:3) "… or to one of his sons, the Cohanim" — One Cohein rules on a plague-spot.

"of leprosy": This refers to the michyah (viz. Vayikra 13:24). This tells me (that he is liable) only for (cutting) all of them. Whence do I derive (the same for) some of them? From "to heed it exceedingly and to do."