Talmud su Levitico 13:78

MISHNAH: There are two kinds of oaths which are four kinds¹Lev. 5:4 requires a reparation sacrifice for inadvertent breach of a commitment made by oath, “what was pronounced, negatively or positively.” The standard example of a positive oath is somebody swearing that he will eat certain foods. The corresponding negative is an oath that he will refrain from eating certain foods. The exact expression used, לְהָרַ֣ע ׀ א֣וֹ לְהֵיטִ֗יב, by its hiph`il form points to the future. A natural complement are backward looking oaths, if a person swears that he ate or did not eat certain foods in the past (Mishnah 3:1). These four cases are equal in sanctions for willful or inadvertent breach.. There are two kinds of awareness of impurity which are four kinds²Lev. 5:2–3 requires a reparation sacrifice for a person who became impure, forgot it, and then either ate sancta in his impurity or entered the Sanctuary. The two added cases are that he knew about being impure but forgot that the food was holy or that the place was a Sanctuary.. There are two kinds of export on the Sabbath which are four kinds³It is forbidden to transport anything on the Sabbath from a private domain to the public domain (Mishnah Šabbat 1:1). “Transport” includes lifting up, moving, and setting down. The two cases where one is liable (for a sacrifice if the sin was unintentional, punishment if the transgression was intentional, and is prosecutable, or extirpation by Divine decree if the crime was intentional but is not prosecutable) are “export” by a person standing inside the private domain, lifting something up inside the domain and putting it down on the outside (e. g., through a window) even without moving his feet, or “import”, somebody lifting an object from the outside to the inside and depositing it there. The two cases where one is not liable refer to a person inside who lifts an object, hands it to a person outside (so that the object never is at rest) and the second person puts it down. Since no one person completed a criminal act, no one can be held liable even though the combined action clearly is forbidden.. There are two kinds of appearances of skin disease which are four kinds⁴Lev. 13:2 defines impure skin disease as שְׂאֵ֤ת אֽוֹ־סַפַּ֨חַת֙ א֣וֹ בַהֶ֔רֶת “as elevated spot, or sapaḥat, or a white spot.” This is read as “an elevated spot (which makes the surrounding skin look elevated over the whitish spot) and a really white spot and their appendages”, deriving sapaḥat from the root ספח, “to append, adjoin.” This extends the definition of impure skin disease from two relatively well defined cases to two additional weaker symptoms..

MISHNAH: Only wool and linen are forbidden as kilaim¹This chapter deals with ša‘aṭnēz(Lev. 19:19, Deut. 22:11) defined as mixing of linen and wool.. Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease²Lev. 13:47–59. Wool and linen are the only textiles mentioned there but leather is under the same rules.. Only wool and linen are worn by priests for their service in the temple³The materials decribed in Ex. 28:5 are interpreted to be gold, wool died dark blue, purple, crimson, and fine linen. Gold was used only for the garments of the High Priest.. If one mixed camel wool and sheep wool, if most is camel wool it is permitted, if most is sheep wool it is forbidden, half and half is forbidden⁴Since the prohibition is biblical, in case of doubt the prohibition prevails.. The same applies if hemp⁵Latin cannabis, also cannabum; Greek κάνναβις, κάνναβος. and linen are mixed.
Raw silk and kalak silk are not subject to kilaim but are forbidden because of the bad impression²⁹Since raw silk looks like flax and kalak silk (cf. Note 33) like wool.. Mattresses and pillows are not subject to kilaim but one’s skin should not touch them. There is no provisional kilaim³⁰One may not wear kilaim even temporarily as explained in the next sentence.. One may not wear kilaim over ten other garments³¹In this case one does not need the kilaim garment as such and derives no bodily comfort from it. Since customs officials are dishonest and charge more than the legal amounts, one does not have to be honest with them, cf. Demay 2:3., not even to trick the customs.

“Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease,” for it is written (Lev. 13:47) “on woolen cloth or on linen cloth.” I could think they can become impure whether dyed or natural; the verse says “woolen cloth or linen cloth.” Just as linen is in its natural state so wool must also be in its natural state¹²Sifra Paršat Nega‘im 13(3–4). It seems that the name of פשתים was used only for undyed linen cloth; dyed cloth had other names.. I might exclude what was dyed by humans but not what was dyed by nature; the verse says (Lev. 13:48): “For the linen and for the wool¹³The implied definite article restricts this to what is certainly called linen and woolen cloth, not, תכלת, ארגמן, תולעת שני, etc. The Babli (Bekhorot 17a) quotes a baraita using the same verse to exclude wool from kilaim of sheep and goats.”, just as linen is white so wool has to be white.

“Only wool and linen can become impure by mold disease,” for it is written (Lev. 13:47) “on woolen cloth or on linen cloth.” I could think they can become impure whether dyed or natural; the verse says “woolen cloth or linen cloth.” Just as linen is in its natural state so wool must also be in its natural state¹²Sifra Paršat Nega‘im 13(3–4). It seems that the name of פשתים was used only for undyed linen cloth; dyed cloth had other names.. I might exclude what was dyed by humans but not what was dyed by nature; the verse says (Lev. 13:48): “For the linen and for the wool¹³The implied definite article restricts this to what is certainly called linen and woolen cloth, not, תכלת, ארגמן, תולעת שני, etc. The Babli (Bekhorot 17a) quotes a baraita using the same verse to exclude wool from kilaim of sheep and goats.”, just as linen is white so wool has to be white.

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.”

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.”

¹⁷This and the following two paragraphs are also in Šeqalim 1:1, fol. 46a; Mo‘ed Qaṭan 1:1, fol. 80b/c. Similar arguments, in the name of different authorities, in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 5a. The discussion is about the note in the Mishnah that graves have to be marked. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob¹⁸A third generation Galilean Amora., in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.” [A bone,] from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

³⁰This and the following two paragraphs are also in Ma‘aser Šeni 5:1, explained there in Notes 14–25; Šeqalim1:1, fol. 46a; Mo‘ed Qaṭan 1:1, fol. 80b/c. Similar arguments, in the name of different authorities, in Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 5a. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it in the name of Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran (Lev. 13:45): “impure, impure, he shall call out;” the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman (Ez. 39:15): “The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone”, from here that one makes markers for bones. A human, from here that one makes markers for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes markers on fixed stones. If you say on loose stones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A marker, from here the marks.

Because of three questions Hillel immigrated from Babylonia. He is pure. I could think that he was rid of it and may take leave, the verse says, the Cohen shall declare him pure. If the Cohen shall declare him pure then I could think that if the Cohen declared him pure while he was impure that he was pure, the verse says, he is pure and the Cohen shall declare him pure²³Lev. 13:37.. For this Hillel immigrated from Babylonia²⁴Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 9(15)..

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male⁷¹Lev. 13:1. Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,⁷²Lev. 13:2.and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him⁷³According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent⁷⁵A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother⁷⁶After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity., also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth⁷⁷Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male..

Similarly said Rebbi Jehudah, if a woman carries seed and gives birth to a male⁷¹Lev. 13:1. Sifra TazriaˋIntroduction (5); another version of Sifra in Midrash Haggadol Lev., ed A. Steinsalz, Jerusalem 1976, pp. 313–314.. What does the verse imply? Since it is said, she shall be impure for seven days,⁷²Lev. 13:2.and on the eighth day one shall circumcise, I understand that a live birth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth. From where that a stillbirth makes his mother impure by the impurity of birth? Rebbi Jehudah said, I am presenting an argument de minore ad majus. Since a live birth, who does not make impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him⁷³According to Pene Mosheh, this refers to multiple births if one of the fetuses is dead., [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent⁷⁵A live birth causes his mother to be impure for seven days; after this time she may remove her impurity at any time by immersion in a miqweh. A stillbirth causes impurity of the dead not only by touch but also by being under the same “tent” and requires the purification rite of the ashes of the Red Cow described in Num. 19., the stillbirth who makes impure for seven days his mother, and those who come with him, [or who comes with his mother,]⁷⁴Unnecessary addition by the corrector. into a tent, it is only logical that he should make his mother impure by the impurity of birth. They told Rebbi Jehudah, any argument de minore ad majus which you argue in the beginning as a restriction but it turns out in the end to be a leniency is no argument de minore ad majus. As a consequence, since a live birth purifies his mother⁷⁶After the impurity of the first 7 days, the next 33 days for a male or 66 days for a female no genital discharge of the mother induces biblical impurity., also the stillbirth should purify his mother? Since I cannot prove it by an argument de minore ad majus, [therefore} the Torah said a male, to include the stillbirth⁷⁷Since the mention of a female in v. 5 implies that the preceding verses refer to a male, the explicit mention of “male” is unnecessary. It is concluded that the verses refer to any fetus recognizably male..

⁶⁵This text in addition is in Ma`aser Šeni5:1, :Notes 17–25, ש) and Sotah9:1 (Notes 29–31, ס). Babli Mo`ed Qatan6a. The biblical roots for the duty of the authorities to mark the places of graves with taxpayers’ money. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out⁶⁷Lev. 13:46. An inappropriate reference since the verse refers to the impurity of the sufferers from skin disease, not of corpses.; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it.⁶⁸Ez. 39:15. {A bone}⁶⁹Quoted from the parallels; in parallel to the following statements the source in the verse should be stated, except for the version of B which quotes the verse only up to a bone., from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks.

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities⁶⁸She unintentionally fell into water which qualifies as a miqweh. In this opinion, an intent to become pure by immersion is needed only to be able to prepare pure food (“purities”) whereas to be permitted to her husband (“pure for her house”) she only has to be immersed since in the relevant biblical paragraph (Lev. 15:19–24) immersion is explicitly required only of people coming in contact with movables on which she sat during her period of impurity. The opposing opinion requires intent for any purification. Babli Ḥulin 31a.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure⁶⁹Lev. 15:59, about impurity of textiles. The remark “a second time” is taken as indication that the second washing has to follow the rules of the first; Babli Ḥulin 31b. A different interpretation in Sifra Tazriaˋ Pereq 16(11). Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash⁷⁰Lev. 13:54.. Intentionally.

⁷⁹Similar texts are in Tanhuma Qorah 2 (Buber 4), Num. rabba 18(2), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Rav said, Koraḥ was an Epicurean. What did he do? He went and made togas completely of blue wool. He came before Moses and asked him, does a toga made completely out of blue wool need ṣiṣit? He answered, it is an obligation since it is written⁸⁰Deut. 22:12. While from Num. 15:37–41 one might free a blue toga from exhibiting a blue thread, this verse makes it clear that a knotted appendage is needed.: braids you shall make for yourselves. Does a house full of Torah scrolls need a mezuzah? He answered, it needs a mezuzah since it is written⁸¹Deut. 6:9, 11:20., you shall write them on the door-posts of your house, etc. He asked him, what is the rule for a white spot the size of a bean⁸²Lev. 13:18–23. By rabbinic interpretation, a white spot indicates skin disease only if it is at least the size of a Cilician bean.? He answered him, it is impure. If it spread over his entire body? He answered him, it is pure⁸³Lev. 13:13.. At that moment, Koraḥ said that the Torah is not from Heaven, nor is Moses a [true]^G prophet, nor Aaron a High Priest. ⁸⁴Cf. Num. rabba 18(15), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Then Moses said, Master of all worlds! If a mouth of the earth had been created during the Six Days of Creation, it is fine. Otherwise it should be created now: If the Eternal would create a Creation⁸⁵Num. 16:30..

⁷⁹Similar texts are in Tanhuma Qorah 2 (Buber 4), Num. rabba 18(2), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Rav said, Koraḥ was an Epicurean. What did he do? He went and made togas completely of blue wool. He came before Moses and asked him, does a toga made completely out of blue wool need ṣiṣit? He answered, it is an obligation since it is written⁸⁰Deut. 22:12. While from Num. 15:37–41 one might free a blue toga from exhibiting a blue thread, this verse makes it clear that a knotted appendage is needed.: braids you shall make for yourselves. Does a house full of Torah scrolls need a mezuzah? He answered, it needs a mezuzah since it is written⁸¹Deut. 6:9, 11:20., you shall write them on the door-posts of your house, etc. He asked him, what is the rule for a white spot the size of a bean⁸²Lev. 13:18–23. By rabbinic interpretation, a white spot indicates skin disease only if it is at least the size of a Cilician bean.? He answered him, it is impure. If it spread over his entire body? He answered him, it is pure⁸³Lev. 13:13.. At that moment, Koraḥ said that the Torah is not from Heaven, nor is Moses a [true]^G prophet, nor Aaron a High Priest. ⁸⁴Cf. Num. rabba 18(15), Midrash Prov. 11(27). Then Moses said, Master of all worlds! If a mouth of the earth had been created during the Six Days of Creation, it is fine. Otherwise it should be created now: If the Eternal would create a Creation⁸⁵Num. 16:30..

“A fire burn³⁷Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so⁴²Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?

“A fire burn³⁷Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so⁴²Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?

“A fire burn³⁷Lev. 13:24, in the rules of skin disease., I could think if it stays moist³⁸This is Maimonides’s interpretation (Negaˋim 7:8), based on the reading in Sifra מורדת. The reading here, מורדת could be interpreted, parallel to Arabic استمرّ “to stay unchanged”, that the wound does not heal., the verse says, if the burn was healed³⁹Lev. 13:27.. If the burn was healed, I could think until it becomes scar tissue, the verse says, a fire burn. How is that? It was partially healed; and so it says below, it is a burn scar;⁴⁰Lev. 13:28. until it forms a membrane in the thickness of a garlic peel.”⁴¹Sifra Tazria Pereq 7(3). And here he says so⁴²Why for skin disease does one include anything which minimally corresponds to the description in the verses, but for Pesaḥ one excludes everything but strict adherence to the prescribed manner.? Rebbi Eleazar says, there fire roasted, only fire roasted⁴³Ex. 12:8,9. Babli 95a., the verse repeated it to make it indispensable. But here, if the burn was healed, in any way. Rebbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, there “law, teaching” makes it indispensable⁴⁴For the Pesaḥ “law” is written in Ex.12:43, “teaching” in 12:49. Any commandment labelled “law” or “teaching” must be kept to the letter; Babli Menaḥot 19a. For skin disease, “teaching” is mentioned the first time for the purification rites (Lev.14:43).. But here what do you have?

BARAITHA.²⁶K 17. R. Eliezer [b. Jacob] said: Whoever masturbates is as though he committed murder, as it is stated, That slay [shoḥeṭë] the children in the valleys. Do not read shoḥeṭë but soḥeṭë [‘that squeeze out’].
GEMARA. It has been taught:²⁷Nid. 13b (Sonc. ed., p. 88). Proselytes and they who masturbate delay the advent of the Messiah. This is understandable of them who masturbate because R. Joḥanan said: The son of David²⁸A term for the Messiah, who will be a descendant of David. will not come before all the souls in the guf²⁹lit. ‘body’, the place of the souls of the unborn. have been disposed of, as it is written, For the spirit that enwrappeth itself is from Me, and the souls which I have made.³⁰Isa. 57, 16. But why proselytes? For it has been taught:³¹Yeb. 47b (Sonc. ed., p. 312). Proselytes are as hard for Israel to endure as a sore, as it is stated, And the stranger shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob.³²Isa. 14, 1. There is a play upon the word for cleave (נספחו) and the word for scab (ספחת) in Lev. 13, 2. [Cf. Moore, op. cit., I, pp. 346f.]

⁵⁵This text in addition is in Ma`aser Šeni5:1, :Notes 17–25) and Soṭah 9:1 (Notes 29–31). Babli Mo`ed Qatan 6a. The biblical roots for the duty of the authorities to mark the places of graves with taxpayers’ money. From where about marks? Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Jacob the son of the daughter of Jacob, in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Yose said it, Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran. Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Uziel the son of Rebbi Onias from Hauran in the name of Rebbi Onias from Hauran: impure, impure, he shall call out⁵⁶Lev. 13:46.; the impurity itself has to call out and say to you: go away! Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: The emissaries shall crisscross the land; if one sees a bone of a human he builds a sign near it⁵⁷Ez. 39:15. A bone, from here that one makes signs for bones. A human, from here that one makes signs for spine and skull. He builds, from here that one makes signs on fixed stones. If you say on loose ones, it would move and make other places impure. Near it, on a place of purity. A sign, from here the marks. ⁵⁸Tosephta Šeqalim 1:5. If one found a single marked stone, even though one should not keep it so, if somebody forms a tent over it he is impure; I say a marked corpse was under it. If there were two, he who forms a tent over any one of them is pure; between them he is impure. If between them was a ploughed strip they are single stones, between them the area is pure and around them impure. It was stated⁵⁹Tosephta Šeqalim 1:5.: “One does not mark flesh, for perhaps it will decompose.” Rebbi Justus bar Shunem asked before Rebbi Mana: Will that not cause pure food to be retroactively made impure? He said to him, it is better that these should become unusable for a limited time than that {the place} become unusable forever.

Rebbi Berekhiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Why is “Land, Land” written twice⁵⁰Deut. 8:8: A Land of wheat and barley, and vine, and fig tree, and pomegranate, a Land of the oil-olive and honey.? To tell you that a house stands only on these two things⁵¹The necessities of life are wheat and olive oil.. Why are [the others] included? Rebbi Jehuda ben Rebbi and Rebbi Samuel ben Naḥman, one says for benedictions⁵²Explained Berakhot 6:4, Notes 150–151, where this opinion is labelled “Babylonian”., the other says for measures⁵³In the Babli, Eruvin 4a/b, Sukkah 5b, this is reported in the name of the Babylonian Rav Ḥanin. The seven measures are: I. A person entering a leprous house is severely impure only if he remains long enough that he could have eaten a slice of wheat bread (Lev. 14:47). 2. A fragment of a human bone the size of a barley corn imparts impurity. 3. A quarter log of wine drunk by a nazir makes him subject to punishment. As a derivative, a quarter log of wine is the minimum for legal obligations. 4. Somebody carrying food in the volume of a dried fig from private to public domain on the Sabbath is guilty of desecrating the Sabbath. 5. A vessel having a pomegranate-sized hole is unusable and freed from the impurity of vessels. 6. The volume of an olive is the standard for most rules involving solid food. 7. Eating food in the volume of a dried date on the Day of Atonement is a desecration of the day.. He who says for benedictions is understandable. He who says for measures, did we not state: “A shiny mark the size of half a bean⁵⁴Lev. 13:1–8, Mishnah Nega‘im 6:1.. A smaller lesion does not make impure.”? That is not reliable⁵⁵The size of the lesion does not mean anything in itself. Even if the lesion is larger, if it does not grow after being seen by the Cohen it does not make impure. If it is smaller but seen by the Cohen and then spreads, there is impurity. (Explanation of Pene Moshe). Another interpretation would be that this and the next measure are not standardized.. “The size of a lentil from a crawling thing”⁵⁶Mishnah Kelim 17:6. A fragment of a dead crawling animal (Lev. 11:29–31) in the size of a lentil makes impure.? That is not reliable⁵⁷An integral limb makes impure even if it is smaller than a lentil..

A woman after her period who was immersed by accident, Rebbi Shammai in the name of Rav: she is pure for her house but impure for purities¹⁰¹She unintentionally fell into water which qualifies as a miqweh. In this opinion, an intent to become pure by immersion is needed only to be able to prepare pure food (“purities”) whereas to be permitted to her husband (“pure for her house”) she only has to be immersed since in the relevant biblical paragraph (Lev. 15:19–24) immersion is explicitly required only of people coming in contact with movables on which she sat during her period of impurity. The opposing opinion requires intent for any purification. Babli Ḥulin31a.. Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina, she is impure both for her house and purities. What is the reason? It should be washed a second time and will be pure¹⁰²Lev. 15:59, about impurity of textiles. The remark “a second time” is taken as indication that the second washing has to follow the rules of the first; Babli Ḥulin31b. A different interpretation in Sifra Tazria` Pereq 16(11). Since the first time it was intentionally, also the second time it must be intentionally. And from where that the first time it was intentionally? The Cohen has to order that they should wash¹⁰³Lev. 13:54.. Intentionally. And we see that rabbis are early for intercalations. Rav Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Mana: It is an obligation to be early, to hasten in commandments¹⁰⁴This refers to something completely different in the rules of Sabbath observation. Rebbi Naḥman requires the husband to direct his household to light Sabbath lights, and therefore begin the observance of the Sabbath, somewhat before the time of sundown since in the fulfilling of divine commandments one has to show eagerness. As an example it is noted that the rabbis who form the court which decrees intercalations always arrive early for the deliberations. This is a commentary on the last statement of the last Mishnah in Chapter Šabbat2..

“The green like leeks.” Rebbi Ze`ira asked before Rebbi Immi: Leek-colored or like leek-colored⁸⁵Somewhat less dark.? He told him, leek-colored. What is the deepest ירק⁸⁶Lev. 13:49, cf. Sifra Tazria Pereq 14(2).? Rebbi Eleazar said, like wax⁸⁷Yellow colored. In biblical Hebrew both green and yellow are subsumed under ירק. The word used in modern Hebrew for yellow, צָהוֹב, biblically means “shiny, shiny red.” and like the flower of the qarmal tree; Symmachos says, like a peacock’s wings. What is the deepest red? That is deep crimson. And here, he says so⁸⁸Why is it green for the etrog but yellow for skin disease?? Rebbi Phineas said, there is a difference there because it says, deepest green.

‘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.

‘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 she saw on the bedsheet, is she trustworthy if she says, it looked like such and such? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah; Rebbi Ḥelbo, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: if she saw on the bedsheet, she is trustworthy if she says, it looked like such and such. It was stated so: She is trustworthy¹⁴⁴Such a baraita is also quoted I the Babli, 20b.. I could think that in the same way she shows the looks of her stain so she shows the looks of skin disease, the verse says¹⁴⁵Lev. 13:2 Skin disease can be judged only by examining the patient personally, not by description.: “He shall be brought to Aaron the priest or to one of his descendants, the priests.”

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,⁵⁵⁶Not to destroy one’s beard or shear the sideburns, Lev. 19:27, inappropriate for women.’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.⁶²⁶Deut. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot⁶²⁷Lev. 21:5, speahing of Cohanim: “They may not make a bald spot on their head; the sideburn of their beard they shall not shave.”.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot⁶²⁸What is missing here is an argument why rules promulgated for Cohanim are valid for all Israelites; cf. Sifry Deut. 96; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(3).. And also from the following: “sons⁶²⁶Deut. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.⁶²⁹Deut. 14:2. The expression “people” applies to both men and women, even hermaphrodites and the sexless.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons⁶³⁰Babli 36a. In this interpretation, when Jesus insists on his being the Father’s son, he implies that the rest of the people do not obey God’s will.. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot⁶³¹Lev. 13:42,43. As with all skin diseases, the disease at a bald spot is diagnosed as such once it has reached the size of a peeled grain; Mishnah Nega‘im 4:5,6.. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal⁶³²In the Genizah text, the rule is traced to R. Eleazar, in line with the other rules of this section.: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land⁶³³Since the “Land of the Gentiles” is impure, a Cohen is not permitted to leave the Land of Israel except in extraordinary circumstances. But the special laws for Cohanim promulgated in Lev. 21 do not apply to their wives and daughters, who cannot serve in the Sanctuary.. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim⁶³⁴Lev. 21:1.,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision⁶³⁵It is difficult to know what this means; the word is missing in the Genizah text. Probably one should read גְּדִידָה “inflicting injury on oneself”, or in Rashi’s words esgratiner(égratigner), “to slit”, forbidden in Deut. 14:1 to all of Israel., she may not leave⁶³⁶Since the general prohibition of Deut. 14:1, applicable also to women, is also the particulat prohibition of Lev. 21:5, one might think that all special rules of Lev. 21 apply to everybody. Then the special position of Cohanim in rules of impurity would be abolished.. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

“Except ‘do not destroy’, ‘do not shear,⁵⁵⁶Not to destroy one’s beard or shear the sideburns, Lev. 19:27, inappropriate for women.’ and ‘do not become impure for the dead’.” Issy says, also because of “do not make a bald spot.⁶²⁶Deut. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.” What is the reason? “They shall not make a bald spot⁶²⁷Lev. 21:5, speahing of Cohanim: “They may not make a bald spot on their head; the sideburn of their beard they shall not shave.”.” One subject to the rules of the beard is subject to the rules of the bald spot; women who have no beard are free from the rules of the bald spot⁶²⁸What is missing here is an argument why rules promulgated for Cohanim are valid for all Israelites; cf. Sifry Deut. 96; Sifra Emor Pereq 1(3).. And also from the following: “sons⁶²⁶Deut. 14:1: “You are children of the Eternal, your God; do not injure yourselves, do not make a bald spot between your eyes for a deceased.” The same argument in the Babli, 35b.,” not daughters. Rebbi Eleazar said, women are obligated by the rules of the bald spot. What is the reason? “For you are a holy people for the Eternal, your God.⁶²⁹Deut. 14:2. The expression “people” applies to both men and women, even hermaphrodites and the sexless.” Both men and women. How does Rebbi Eleazar explain “sons”? When they do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are called sons, but when they do not do the will of the Holy One, praise to Him, they are not called sons⁶³⁰Babli 36a. In this interpretation, when Jesus insists on his being the Father’s son, he implies that the rest of the people do not obey God’s will.. Rav was ordering his students, there came Rav Hamnuna ordering the colleagues: Order you wives not to tear out their hair when standing by a deceased, that they should not make a bald spot. What is a bald spot? There are Tannaïm who stated: Any size. There are Tannaïm who state: The size of a peeled grain. The one who says, any size, because the meaning of “bald spot” is of any size. The one who says, a peeled grain, for it is said here “to make a bald spot”, and it says there, a bald spot⁶³¹Lev. 13:42,43. As with all skin diseases, the disease at a bald spot is diagnosed as such once it has reached the size of a peeled grain; Mishnah Nega‘im 4:5,6.. Since “bald spot” mentioned there means in the size of a peeled grain, here also it means the size of a peeled grain. Rebbi Yose bar Mamal⁶³²In the Genizah text, the rule is traced to R. Eleazar, in line with the other rules of this section.: A Cohenet is permitted to leave the Land⁶³³Since the “Land of the Gentiles” is impure, a Cohen is not permitted to leave the Land of Israel except in extraordinary circumstances. But the special laws for Cohanim promulgated in Lev. 21 do not apply to their wives and daughters, who cannot serve in the Sanctuary.. What is the reason? “Say to the Cohanim⁶³⁴Lev. 21:1.,” not to the Cohanot. If it were otherwise, what would we say? Since she is included in the decision⁶³⁵It is difficult to know what this means; the word is missing in the Genizah text. Probably one should read גְּדִידָה “inflicting injury on oneself”, or in Rashi’s words esgratiner(égratigner), “to slit”, forbidden in Deut. 14:1 to all of Israel., she may not leave⁶³⁶Since the general prohibition of Deut. 14:1, applicable also to women, is also the particulat prohibition of Lev. 21:5, one might think that all special rules of Lev. 21 apply to everybody. Then the special position of Cohanim in rules of impurity would be abolished.. If you say so, you push aside the paragraph of impurities.

HALAKHAH: “What is the difference between a man and a woman? A man is dishevelled and with open seams,” etc. “A man²²⁸Lev.13:44: “A man afflicted with skin disease is he, impure is he, the Cohen shall certainly declare him impure if his disease is on his head.”
A slightly more complete text in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut8b, Arakhin3a.”. This refers not only to a man; from where for a woman? The verse says, “afflicted with skin disease,” whether man, or woman, or minor. If it is so, why is “a man” written? For the next theme²²¹A man afflicted with skin disease must have dishevelled hair and wear clothes open at the seams (Lev.13:45). It is written in v. 44: He is a man with skin disease., “a man is dishevelled and with open seams, no woman is dishevelled and with open seams.”

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..

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..

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..

“A man is sold for his theft,” for his theft but not for the double restitution²²⁸Lev.13:44: “A man afflicted with skin disease is he, impure is he, the Cohen shall certainly declare him impure if his disease is on his head.”
A slightly more complete text in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq12(1); a shortened text in Babli 23 a, Keritut8b, Arakhin3a.. For his theft but not for his perjury²²⁹The Babli (Soṭa 23 b; Nazir 25 a/b, 28b, 30a, 61b) and dependent sources [Num. rabba 10 (20] disagree and quote R. Joḥanan insisting that according to the biblical text, nobody can impose a state of nazir on another person but that it is traditional practice (in the words of the Midrash: “going back to Moses on Mount Sinai”) that a father may force his son to be a nazir, implying that nobody can dissent.
The same paragraph is found in Nazir 4:6, fol. 53c.. For his theft he is not sold twice. There is only a monetary claim on him. That means, for one theft, but for two thefts he can be sold a second time²³⁰Ex. 21:7.. Rebbi Jeremiah asked: If he stole from a partnership, how are you treating this? As one theft or as two thefts²³¹Deut. 22:16.? If he stole and removed [things] in the night, we would say that if the owners realized [the loss] in the meantime, there are two thefts; otherwise, it is one theft.

Wayyishḥṭ¹²And when it was slain; it is uncertain whether this refers to Lev. 8, 15 (N.Y.) or ibid. 23 (M) both of which begin with the same word. must be enlarged,¹³According to M and H only the ḥeth of the word, it being also the initial of ḥaẓi (half), is to be enlarged. because it is half of the verses of the Torah.¹⁴In Ḳid. 30a (Sonc. ed., p. 144) wehithgallaḥ (Lev. 13, 33, then he shall be shaven) is given as the middle of the verses and, according to the Masorah, its gimel is to be enlarged. On the number of verses opinions differ. It is variously computed as 5,844, 5,845, 5,885 and 5,888.

¹⁸²This paragraph is in Sifra Tazria‘ Pereq 1(4), Babli Šabbat 132b.“The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized.¹⁸³Lev. 12:3.” Even if it has white skin disease¹⁸⁴Lev. 13:2–28.. How can I confirm: “Beware of skin disease to watch it carefully and to do …¹⁸⁵Deut. 24:8. The injunction to follow all instructions of the priests in matters of impure skin disease is interpreted to mean that it is forbidden to cut out the diseased part of the skin. Then if a baby is born with diseased prepuce, how could it be circumcised?”? Also at a circumcision. Then how can I confirm: “The flesh of his prepuce should be circumcized”? If there is no white skin disease? The verse says, “the flesh¹⁸⁶Since the intent is to cut the flesh, cutting the skin is only incidental and is not in the mind of the person who does the circumcision.”, even if it has white skin disease. ¹⁸⁷The disagreement between rabbis Jonah and Yose is discussed in Ḥallah 2:1, Notes 9,10. This is simple in the opinion of Rebbi Jonah, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition even if they are not written together. But in the opinion of Rebbi Yose, who says that a positive commandment supersedes a prohibition only if they are written together? Since it is written “the flesh of his prepuce,” it is as if it were written together¹⁸⁸The prohibition is irrelevant, cf. Note 186..

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).

Ten words in the Torah are marked with dots. They are as follows: 1. “The Eternal will judge between me and you” (Genesis 16:5). There is a dot above the letter yod in the term, “and you.” This teaches that Sarah did not say this to Abraham, but to Hagar. Some say that it means she was speaking about those who caused the fighting “between me and you.” 2. “They said to him, Where is Sarah?” (Genesis 18:9). There are dots above the letters aleph, yod, and vav in the term, “to him,” to indicate that they already knew where she was, but they nevertheless inquired about her. 3. (There is a dot on the verse,) “When she lay down and when she arose” (Genesis 19:33). There is a dot above the letter vav in the term, “When she arose” the first time it is used [with regard to Lot’s older daughter]. This teaches that he was not aware of what happened until the (younger daughter) arose. 4. “And Esau ran to greet him, and he hugged him, fell on his neck, and kissed him” (Genesis 33:4). The term for, “and kissed him,” has dots above every letter, to teach that he did not kiss him sincerely. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would say: It means that this kiss was sincere, but every other one he gave Jacob was not. 5. “His brothers went to shepherd their father’s flocks in Shechem” (Genesis 37:12). There are dots on the word just before “flocks.” This teaches that they did not actually go to shepherd the flocks, but to eat and drink (and indulge their temptations). 6. “All the Levites who were recorded, whom Moses and Aaron recorded” (Numbers 3:39). There are dots above Aaron’s name. Why? To teach that Aaron himself was not counted in this record. 7. “On a long journey” (Numbers 9:10). There is a dot above the letter hei in the word “long.” This teaches that this does not really mean a long journey, but any exiting the boundaries of the outer court of the Temple. 8. “We caused destruction all the way up to Nophach, which reaches into Medeba” (Numbers 21:30). There is a dot above the letter reish in the word “which.” Why? To teach that they destroyed the idolaters but not the countries themselves (whereas the practice of idolaters was to destroy entire countries). 9. “A tenth, a tenth for each” (Numbers 29:15). [This verse delineates the meal offering that accompanies the burnt offering] on the first day of the Sukkot festival. There is a dot above the letter vav in the [first occurrence of the] word “tenth.” Why? To teach that there is only one-tenth [measure] for each. 10. “The hidden things are for the Eternal our God, and the revealed things are for us and our children forever” (Deuteronomy 29:30). There are dots above the words “for us and our children,” and above the letter ayin in the word “forever.” Why? For this is what Ezra said: If Elijah comes and says to me: Why did you write it this way? I will say to him: I have already put dots above these words [to indicate I was not certain it was correct]. But if he says to me: You wrote it correctly, then I will remove the dots.
There are eleven instances in the Torah where the Hebrew word for “she,” היא, is written as הוא (which means “he” or “it”) but vocalized to mean “she.” The first is: “The King of Bela, he is [i.e., “she is”] Tzur” (Genesis 14:1). The second: “He himself said to me, ‘She is my sister,’ and SHE also said, ‘He is my brother’” (Genesis 20:5). The third: “As she was being brought out, SHE sent a message to her father-in-law, saying” (Genesis 38:25). The fourth: “If one of your animals of which it is [i.e., “she is”] used for food dies” (Leviticus 11:39). The fifth: “And it [i.e., “and she”] has turned the hair white” (Leviticus 13:10). The sixth: “If the priest sees it…and it [i.e., “and she”] has faded” (Leviticus 13:21). [The seventh: “It (i.e., “she”) shall be a Sabbath of complete rest for you” (Leviticus 16:31). The eighth: “And SHE sees his nakedness” (Leviticus 20:17). The ninth: “SHE has disgraced her father” (Leviticus 21:9). The tenth: “And SHE has kept secret, and defiled herself (and she was not caught)” (Numbers 5:13). The eleventh: “A spirit of jealousy has passed over him, and he is jealous of his wife…but SHE has not defiled herself” (Numbers 5:14).