Midrash su Levitico 14:8

4) When Munbaz reasoned before R. Akiva: If one whom I freed (immediately, [i.e., an unconfirmed leper, who returned from his week of quarantine)] — (If one whom I freed immediately from a state of tumah) upon his standing (i.e., upon his return to the encampment), I had held (in a state of tumah) in his going (into quarantine) for seven days, then one whom I held (in his state of tumah for seven days, [namely, a healed confirmed leper]) in his standing, (i.e., upon his return to the encampment after his first shaving [viz. Vayikra 14:8]), does it not follow that I should have held him for seven days (in a state of tumah) in his going (i.e., in the interval between his being healed from the plague-spot and his return to the encampment!) R. Akiva said to him: I can add to your words, viz.: Where would Scripture be more stringent? In the days of confirmation (of absolute leprosy), or in the days of counting (i.e., the seven days between the first shaving and the second)? The days of confirmation are more stringent than the days of counting. For in the days of counting he does not confer tumah through couch (mishkav) or seat (moshav), and he does not confer tumah (to a house) through entry, whereas in the days of confirmation, he does. And if for the days of counting, which are less stringent, you have accorded seven, then for the days of confirmation, should not seven be accorded! Munbaz: Master, indeed, you have substantiated my words! R. Akiva: And when you accord seven for the days of confirmation, they, likewise, become days of counting, so that both combined become fourteen. And if to the less stringent days of counting you have accorded fourteen, then how much more so should fourteen be accorded to the more stringent days of confirmation, so that the process should continue interminably. And it is precisely to countermand such reasoning that Scripture must state "On the day of his cleansing he shall be brought to the Cohein (for the cleansing procedure)" — he shall not delay (from his being healed of the plague-spot to his being cleansed).

6) (Vayikra 14:8) ("And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, and he shall shave all of his hair, and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp. And he shall sit outside his tent for seven days.") "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes": R. Shimon said: What does this come to teach us? If to confer tumah upon garments by contact, does this not follow a fortiori? viz.: If in the days of his counting (seven days, after having brought the birds), when he does not confer tumah by entry (into a house), he does confer tumah upon garments by contact (viz. Vayikra 14:9 "And he shall wash his clothes"), then in the days of his confirmation (of absolute leprosy, i.e., our instance), when he does confer tumah by entry, how much more so should he confer tumah upon garments by contact! If so, why is it written "And the one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes"? (He must wash them) from mishkav (couch) and moshav (seat) tumah, (their having become tamei by being under him, even though he did not touch them.) For there are two types of garment washing: one, for mishkav and moshav tumah (our instance); the other, for conferring tumah upon garments by contact (that in verse 14:9).

7) "and he shall shave all of his hair": I might think even his (normally) covered hair. And this would follow (by the following line of reasoning:) Shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of counting (Vayikra 14 verse 9), and shaving is mentioned in respect to his days of confirmation (Vayikra 14 verse 8). Just as the former excludes covered hair, so the latter excludes covered hair.

8) — Now if we are lenient in respect to the days of his counting, when he does not confer tumah by mishkav or moshav or by entry, should we be lenient in respect to the days of his confirmation, when he does confer tumah by mishkav and moshav and by entry! Since he confers tumah by these, he should also be required to shave what is (normally) covered! It is, therefore, written "all of his hair" (Vayikra 14 verse 8) - "all of his hair" (Vayikra 14 verse 9) for an identity (gezeirah shavah). Just as "all of his hair" in respect to the days of his counting excludes covered hair, so "all of his hair" in respect to the days of his confirmation excludes covered hair.

9) "and he shall bathe in water": even in the water of a mikveh. Now should it not follow (otherwise), viz.: If a zav (one with a genital discharge), who does not require (for his cleansing) the sprinkling of living (running) water, requires bathing in living water (viz. Vayikra 15:13), then a leper, who requires the sprinkling of living water, how much more so should he require bathing in living water! It is, therefore, written "and he shall bathe in water" — even in the water of a mikveh.

10) "and he shall bathe in water, and he shall be clean; and then he shall come into the camp": The bathing of his body is indispensable for his coming into the camp, and the washing of his garments is not indispensable for his coming into the camp.

11) "And he shall sit outside his tent": as one who is under the ban. And he is forbidden to engage in marital relations, it being written "his tent," which is none other than his wife, as it is written (Devarim 5:27) "Return to your tents" (i.e., to your wives). "for seven days". And (this abstention from marital relations does) not (obtain) during the days of his confirmation (as a leper). These are the words of Rebbi. R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah says: How much more so does it obtain for the days of his confirmation! R. Chiyya said: I asked before Rebbi: Did we not learn, master, that Yotham was conceived by Uzziyahu only during the days of his confirmation? He answered: I, too, said that.

(Bamidbar 6:12) "And he shall devote to the L-rd the days of his Naziritism (and he shall bring a lamb of the first-year as a guilt-offering"): What is the intent of this? Because we find in respect to all the guilt-offerings of the Torah that they are categorical (requirements for the effecting of a new condition), I might think that this (guilt-offering of the Nazirite) is also categorical (in respect to the resumption of his Naziritism), it is, therefore, written "and he shall devote … and he shall bring, etc." Though he has not yet brought (the guilt-offering), he may re-devote himself (to Naziritism). R. Yishmael the son of R. Yochanan b. Berokah says: This, too, is categorical, it being written "And he shall devote to the L-rd, etc." (the verse being understood as ) "When (shall he devote to the L-rd)?" when he has brought a lamb of the first year as a guilt-offering. "and the first days shall fall off": Whence is it derived that if one declares himself a Nazirite for a hundred days and he becomes tamei on the ninety-ninth day, he voids all (of the previous count)? From "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days). Perhaps even one who becomes tamei on the hundredth day voids all (of the previous count). It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has later days voids (the first days), but this one has no later days. Perhaps even if he becomes tamei in the beginning of the hundred (i.e., on the first day) he voids all. It is, therefore, written "and the first days shall fall off" — One who has first "days" (plural), voids, but this one does not have (them). "because his Naziritism was tamei": Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all. For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If tumah (i.e., making himself tamei) is forbidden and shaving is forbidden, if I have learned that tumah voids all, shaving, too, should void all. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If tumah, where the defiler (i.e., one who makes a Nazirite tamei) is not equated (for liability) with the defiled (i.e., the Nazirite who makes himself tamei), (if tumah) voids all, then shaving, where the shaver (of a Nazirite) is equated (for liability) with the shaved (i.e., the Nazirite who shaves himself), how much more so should he void all! It is, therefore, written "because his Naziritism was tamei" — Tumah voids all, but shaving does not void all, (but just the first thirty days). This (6:11 "and he shall hallow his head to that day") tells me only that the days of his tumah are not counted towards his Naziritism. Whence do I derive (the same for) the days of his confirmation (as a leper)? (i.e., If the Nazirite were a leper, and the Cohein quarantined him, and the plague-spot spread, and he were confirmed as tamei — Whence do I derive that the days of his confirmation are not counted towards his Naziritism?) And it follows (that they should not be counted, viz.: Since the days of his (Nazirite) tumah require shaving and the bringing of an offering, as do the days of confirmation (as a leper), then if I have learned about the days of his tumah that they are not counted towards his Naziritism, so should I learn about the days of his confirmation (as a leper). — No, this may be true of the days of his tumah, which void the preceding days, wherefore they are not counted towards his Naziritism. But would you say the same for the days of his confirmation, which do not void the preceding days? — wherefore they should be counted! Would you say that? It follows a fortiori (that they should not be counted), viz.: If one who undertakes Naziritism in the cemetery, whose hair is susceptible of shaving (for new Naziritism after he leaves the cemetery) — If his preceding days are not counted towards his Naziritism, then the days of his (leprosy) confirmation, when his hair is not susceptible of the shaving for Naziritism, how much more so should they not be counted. And the same (i.e., that they are not counted towards his Naziritism) is true for the days of his counting (seven days outside of his tent, Vayikra 14:8).