Talmud su Levitico 13:6

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

‘Five things’, etc.: ‘A round cushion’. Why?²⁷Why is not their stuffing removed before immersion? For it is written, Woe to the women that sew cushions upon all elbows, and make pads for the head of persons of every stature to hunt souls!²⁸Ezek. 13, 18. Here cushions are compared with pads [mispaḥoth]: just as a ‘scab’ [sapaḥath] is clean, as it is written, Then the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is a scab,²⁹Lev. 13, 6. so too is a cushion clean.³⁰i.e. the stuffing in it need not be removed before the cushion is immersed.
The Rabbis taught:³¹Sanh. 68a (Sonc. ed., p. 462). [The story is related in ARN, p. 124ff.] When R. Eliezer fell sick, all the wise men of Israel came to visit him. That day was the Sabbath-eve and he was wearing his tefillin. His son entered to remove them from him,³²Because they are not worn on the Sabbath. but he rebuked him and drove him away in anger. [The son] said to the wise men, ‘I believe that my father’s mind is deranged’. Whereupon [R. Eliezer] exclaimed, ‘His mind and that of his mother are deranged but my mind is not’. As he was dying, he put two of his fingers together and said, ‘Woe to me because of these two Scrolls of the Torah!³³The parallel passage in Sanh. adds: ‘that are wrapped up’, so that they cannot be read. So had it been with his knowledge, none learning from him because he had been excommunicated. Cf. B.M. 59b (Sonc. ed., p. 353). Much Torah have I learnt and much Torah have I taught,³⁴Before the ban. yet I extracted little from the knowledge of my teachers like a dog lapping from the sea. My disciples have only extracted little from me like a painting-stick from its tube. If all the trees were made into pens and all the seas into ink, they would not suffice to write down all that I expounded. Moreover, I have studied three hundred laws on the subject of a deep bright spot³⁵One of the symptoms of leprosy (Lev. 13, 2). and three hundred established laws³⁶i.e. decisions arrived at after discussion. derived from the verse, Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live,³⁷Ex. 22, 17. and no man, excepting ‘Aḳiba b. Joseph, ever questioned me thereon’ [54a].
The master said, ‘Like a dog lapping from the sea’—he compared himself to a dog! He said it with reference to his disciples. And why to his disciples? Because they did not visit him during his illness; and it has been taught: He said concerning them, ‘I will be surprised if they die a natural death’.³⁸Sanh. loc. cit.

If it spread while in quarantine²⁴⁶Lev. 13:13. If the entire skin of the patient is diseased, he is pure. Naturally while the disease is spreading he satisfies all conditions of severe purity, but since this requires a pronouncement by the Cohen, if there were no clear signs of impurity when he was put in quarantine and at the end of the quarantine the entire skin already was diseased, the Cohen who sees him only at the start and the end of his 7 days of quarantine has to declare him pure out of quarantine without ever pronouncing him absolutely impure., Rebbi Joḥanan said, he needs birds. Rebbi Eleazar said, he does not need birds. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, a baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan: ²⁴⁷Sifra Mesora` Introduction 6–8.“From the sufferer from skin disease²⁴⁸Lev. 14:3. As introduction to the bird ceremony the Cohen has “to see that the skin disease was healed from the sufferer from skin disease.” Skin disease can be healed only from a sufferer from the disease; the final remark seems to be redundant. It is added to include also a sufferer who never was declared as such.; to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds. Is that not a logical argument? If a person became pure and the signs of what made him impure are not on him shall need birds²⁴⁹The disappearance of his symptoms is the sign that he is healed, in contrast to the person who is pure but far from healed in that all his skin is infected., (should not) [is it not logical that]²⁵⁰The corrector’s changes are from the (Babylonian style) Sifra. one who became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him [shall] need birds? [But] the one on whom it was stable for two weeks²⁵¹Lev. 13:6. If the white spot does not grow within 14 days nor develop a white hair, the person has to be declared pure (after immersion) even though his problem skin is still visible. shall disprove it, since he became pure and the signs of what made him impure are on him, but he does not need birds. So do not wonder if one on whom it spread while in quarantine and the signs of what made him impure are on him does not need birds. The verse says, from the sufferer of skin disease to include one on whom it spread on his entire person that he needs birds.” If you would say that one becoming pure in quarantine does not need birds, should he not have objected that it would have been better to argue spreading against spreadings and not staying stable against spreadings²⁵²This is the proof that the Sifra supports the opinion of R. Joḥanan since following R. Eleazar instead of appealing to purity after a lengthy quarantine the Tanna should have mentioned the case of fast spreading skin disease which at the next inspection by the Cohen already has changed from a sign of impurity to one of purity and does not need birds.? Rebbi Ḥananiah the colleague of the rabbis: the baraita supports Rebbi Joḥanan since the Tanna answers his colleague, no. If you are saying about this one who never was up to be declared absolute, what can you say about the one who was to be declared absolute²⁵³The case of dispute between R. Joḥanan and R. Eleazar is not comparable to other cases of skin disease since the Cohen is not empowered to inspect during the quarantine; the patient never was in a state to be declared absolutely impure.? Because he was to be declared absolute, he needs birds. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, the closing statement²⁵⁴The second sentence of the Mishnah. supports Rebbi Eleazar. The one becoming pure in quarantine is not liable for torn clothing, and untended hair, and shaving, and birds. All of this is what we are considering here, about spreadings²⁵⁵This seems to refer to a statement similar to the wording of the Mishnah in the Babli: The only difference between one declared pure after quarantine and one declared pure after being absolutely impure is shaving and birds. Since this envisages a situation like the one discussed here, it explicitly supports the Babylonian R. Eleazar.. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, all they are disagreeing is about bringing birds. But in the matter of bringing a sacrifice everybody agrees that he does not bring a sacrifice. It was stated thus: On the seventh he has to shave, on the eighth he shall bring²⁵⁶Lev. 14:9,10.; one who needs shaving brings a sacrifice, one who does not need shaving does not bring a sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina: All days on which the skin disease is on him he will be impure²⁵⁷Lev. 13:46., one whose impurity is caused by his skin disease. This excludes him whose (purity) [impurity]²⁵⁸Both the scribe’s and the corrector’s texts give the same meaning; the correction is unnecessary. depends on the count of his days²⁵⁹Since the Cohen cannot judge him during the intermediate days of his quarantine.. So far torn clothing and unkempt hair. From where shaving and birds²⁶⁰What is the biblical source of the statement of the Mishnah regarding these items?? Rebbi Eleazar the Southerner in the name of Rebbi Shammai: This shall be the doctrine of the sufferer from skin disease on the day²⁶¹Lev. 14:2.. One who may become impure and pure on one day; this excludes one who cannot become impure and pure on one day²⁶²Since quarantine makes impure for a minimum of 7 days..