Talmud su Levitico 14:78

The minimum of birds are two. Then why does the verse say two? that both be equal¹⁰Lev. 14:4..

Birds¹²Lev. 14:4., the minimum of birds are two. If so, why does it say two? That both be equal.

HALAKHAH: “He brought a bowl,” etc. It was stated: “A new one.⁵⁹In the Babli, 15b, this is attributed to R. Ismael. The statement is not mentioned in the Midrashim. The quote seems to imply a Mishnah text similar to that of the Babli.” Our Mishnah follows Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁰The argument is mentioned in his name in Sifra Meṣorah Pereq 1(4)., as we have stated there⁶¹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:1, referring to the purification of the person healed from skin disease.: “He brought a new earthenware bowl.” Who stated “a new one”? Rebbi Eliezer! Since he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water.⁶²Lev. 14:5, speaking of the slaughtering of one of the two birds used in the purification rite. “Live” water is running water from a fountain or natural stream.” Just as the water had no prior use, so the earthenware vessel should not have had any prior use. It is understandable there because he explains: “Into an earthenware vessel on fresh water;” but what may one say here⁶³The argument is irrelevant for the ritual of the suspected wife. In the Babli, the connection is made by R. Ismael’s rule of gezerah s̊awah: If the meaning of “earthenware vessel” was determined to include “new”, the same meaning applies everywhere. The Yerushalmi rejects this application to the names of vessels of common use.? Rebbi Joḥanan said, because he⁶⁴R. Eliezer. agrees with Rebbi Ismael. It was stated: From the wash basin⁶⁵From which the priests draw the water for their ablutions; cf. Ex. 30:17–21. The statement is also anonymous in Sifry Num. 10, Sifry zuṭa Naśo, Num. rabba 9(12); cf. Targumim to Num. 5:17. In the Babli, 15b, it is attributed to R. Joḥanan in the editio princeps, impossible in a Tannaïtic text, and to R. Ismael in the Munich ms., contradicting the next statement there. In the Babli text quoted in the 12th Century Sefer Yereïm 460 (ed. S. Z. Halberstam), the statement is missing; this is the only consistent Babli text, defining this baraita as differing from the Mishnah.. Rebbi Ismael says, water from a fountain. But the Sages approve of all kinds of water⁶⁶The last two statements are also in the Babli, 15b. The statement by R. Ismael requires the water to be brought from outside the Temple precinct (the Giḥon source); the rabbis permit the water to be drawn also from the water canal crossing the temple courtyard or from one of the miqwaot in the Temple area.. Therefore, Rebbi Eliezer holds with Rebbi Ismael about the water and Rebbi Ismael with Rebbi Eliezer about the earthenware vessel. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, into a new earthenware vessel. Some Tannaїm state: Into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah⁶⁷From the context (here, and in Sifra, loc. cit.) it follows that the word describes a somehow defective or incomplete clay vessel. Ben Jehudah in his Thesaurus (p. 3662) quotes several proposed interpretations without giving his own opinion. As a Semitic word, the root is נקד, “exhibiting spots”, but cf. Greek μαγίς, -ίδος, ἡ, “kneading trough, pan, plate”; Latin magis, -idis, or magida -ae, “dish, platter, kneading trough”.. Some Tannaїm state: Even into a maqqēdah. They⁶⁸Some members of the Academy. wanted to say, he who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, is Rebbi Eliezer⁶⁹Since it may be assumed that “a new vessel” means: not a defective one. but those who say, even into a maqqēdah, are the rabbis. It all is the rabbis’. He who says, into an earthenware vessel but not into a maqqēdah, if most of it was removed but a small part was left; he who says, even into a maqqēdah, if a small part was removed but most of it was left⁷⁰A broken vessel is acceptable if it represents the major part of a complete vessel. This statement is not in the Babli; since the Babli requires a new vessel (or at least one renewed by firing), it will reject a broken one..

From where that a purification sacrifice must be for the name of its owner⁵⁵All Temple personnel dealing with the sacrifice have to know the name of the owner, and the purpose of the sacrifice, and have to intend to help his expiation.? Rebbi Jeremiah said, the Cohen shall make the purification offering and expiate for the one who purifies himself from his impurity⁵⁶Lev. 14:19. Babli Zevaḥim 8a in the name of Rava, a contemporary of R. Jeremiah.
From here through Chapter 7 there exists a series of Genizah fragments from the Kaufmann collection in Budapest, published by S. Loewinger in the Hebrew part of the Alexander Marx Jubilee Volumes (New York 1950), indicated here by K.. Rebbi Yose said to him, but then also the burning of its parts⁵⁰Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, and expiate. Since pouring is particular in that it invalidates expiation⁵²Since it is spelled out that the blood is it which atones for the soul(Lev. 17:11), if anything goes wrong in any action necessary up to the pouring of the blood on the altar’s wall the sacrifice is invalid, but nothing that happens afterwards can invalidate the offering. If the parts to be burned become impure, they have to be burned outside the Temple district but the sacrifice remains valid., this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

“If he planted for the public benefit, it is obligated; Rebbi Jehudah exempts”. The rabbis seem inconsistent. There⁶²Mishnah Nega‘im 12:4; cf. Babli Yoma 12a., they say: “Jerusalem and outside the Land cannot become impure by skin disease,” but here, they say so⁶³As explained in the next Note, Jerusalem is public property and any tree planted there should be exempt as planted for public use.! There (Lev. 14:35) “the owner of the house comes”⁶⁴The actual verse referred to is Lev. 14:34: “I shall put skin disease on a house on the Land of your inheritance.” This excludes all houses in territory not distributed to the tribes; Jerusalem was conquered by David as capital not belonging to any particular tribe. Sifra Meẓora‘ Parašah 5 proves from the verse that (a) the rules did not apply before the distribution of the Land, (b) a house built on poles, not being a “house on the Land” is also not subject to the rules, (c) houses in Jerusalem (and certainly outside the Land) are excluded., excluding Jerusalem which was not distributed among the tribes. But here, (Lev. 19:21) “when you plant,” in any way.

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰²A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹²Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..

Three things have to be executed in the name [of the woman]¹⁰²A similar text in Tosephta Giṭṭin 2:7.. “He shall write for her.¹⁰³Deut. 24:1, speaking of a bill of divorce. The document has to be written for her, otherwise it is invalid (MishnahGiṭṭin 3:2, Sifry Deut. 269, quoted many times in both Talmudim).” “He shall execute for her.¹⁰⁴Num. 5:30. The Cohen has to conduct the ceremony of the suspected wife for that particular woman, otherwise it is invalid. The Babli (18a) refers this only to the scroll which is to be written for the woman, which has to be written and erased with that particular person in mind.” “Or manumission was not given to her.¹⁰⁵Lev. 19:20, speaking of a slave girl. The document of manumission has to be executed for the particular slave girl. This requirement is then extended in the Tosephta to the manumission of male slaves.” ¹⁰⁶Babli 16b; Tosephta 1:8; Sifry Num. 11, Sifry Zuṭa Naśo; Num.rabba 9(13). Three things have to be seen: The ashes of the cow¹⁰⁷Some ash has to be visible on the water used to purify from the impurity of the dead., the dust of the suspected wife¹⁰⁸As described in the Mishnah., and the spittle of the sister-in-law¹⁰⁹Deut. 25:9, in the ceremony of ḥalîṣah; cf. Mishnah Yebamot 12:6.. Rebbi Ismael stated: Also the blood of the bird for the sufferer from skin disease¹¹⁰Lev. 14:5; the healed patient has to be purified by being sprinkled with spring water mixed with the blood of a bird.. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Sages estimated that the blood of a small bird becomes negligible in a quarter [log] and the blood of a large bird does not render a quarter [log of water] negligible¹¹¹Taking exactly one quarter log (135 dl, cf. Note 55) will prevent any problems.. As it was stated¹¹²Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 1(5); Babli 16b.: “In the blood¹¹³Lev. 14:6. The Cohen has to dip the hyssop and a living bird “in the blood of the slaughtered bird on the flowing water”. The “fresh water” is in a vessel but was taken from a spring. The blood of the slaughtered bird is on the fresh water in the vessel. The simple meaning of the verse, that the bird’s blood must form a layer on the fresh water, obviously cannot be meant.”, should that be only blood? The verse says, “fresh water”. If fresh water, should that be all fresh water? The verse says, “in the blood”. How is this? Fresh water in which the bird’s blood is recognizable. The Sages estimated, a quarter [log]. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The water of a suspected wife becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁴Following the opinion that the water has to be taken from the water basin in the Temple. Any water taken from there and sanctified in a temple vessel belongs to the service of that day; once the day has passed (which in the Temple is counted from dawn to dawn), its service cannot be made up (cf. Sukkah 4:7). But according to the opinion that the water may come from outside sources, the position of R. Joḥanan could be explained. However, R. Joḥanan holds everywhere that practice follows the anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177; Babli Ḥulin 43a).. Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abina: Nothing of which the altar has no part becomes disqualified by staying overnight¹¹⁵R. Joḥanan will hold that water in the basin is for the altar in the water offering on Tabernacles (Sukkah 4:7). The problem is not discussed in the Babli; Maimonides (Soṭah 4:12) follows R. Joḥanan as the overriding authority..

Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated³⁰³Babli Soṭah 16b; Sifry Deut. #122.: At three places teaching circumvents Scripture and at another place the interpretation.The Torah said, “in a scroll”³⁰⁴This is a wrong quote, referring to Num. 6:23, the text of the incantations required in the rite of the wife suspected of infidelity. But that text has to be written on a scroll; cf. Soṭah 2:4, Notes 143-144. Here, it should say סֵפֶר "book", referring to the divorce document mentioned in Deut. 24:1 which can be written on anything not connected to the ground; Mishnah Giṭṭin 2:3. The quote is correct in the sources quoted in the preceding Note., but practice said on anything separated from the ground. The Torah said, “in dust”³⁰⁵Lev. 17:13. The blood of slaughtered wild animals or birds has to be covered “in dust”., but practice said in anything on which plants grow³⁰⁶Mishnah Ḥulin 6:6.. The Torah said, “with an awl”, but practice said, even a buck-thorn, even a thorn, even glass. And at one place the interpretation³⁰⁷R. Ismael’s own hermeneutical rules.: Rebbi Ismael stated: “It shall be on the seventh day that he shave all his hair³⁰⁸Lev. 14:9, speaking of the ritual purification of the healed sufferer from skin disease. All the quotes are from this verse.,” inclusion. “His head, his beard, and his eyebrows,” detail. Since it continues “and all his hair he shall shave,” it repeats inclusion. Inclusion, detail, and inclusion is judged only by what is similar to the detail³⁰⁹By the seventh hermeneutical rule one has to try to find an intensional definition of the properties common to the examples given as detail; these then are the properties referred to by the inclusions.. Since the detail is explained as place of bunching and exposed, it should refer only [hair growing] in bunches at exposed places. But practice is that he shaves to be like a gourd³¹⁰Shaving completely every exposed hair; Mishnah Nega‘im 14:4. (Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2 disagrees with the baraita here and the Mishnah and holds that the insistence on the shaving of all hair in both inclusions requires that any single one of the properties mentioned in the analysis of the detail, hair growing in bunches or visible, has to be shaved but nothing else. The Tanna of Sifra holds that practice follows interpretation closely.). “With an awl”, since an awl is made of metal, so anything made of metal³¹¹In Babylonian sources, Babli 21b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Sifry Deut # 122, this is an argument of Rebbi, in Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai, of R. Yose ben Jehudah: Any metal implement which can be used for piercing is called “awl”. The most detailed analysis of the verse is in the Babli, 21b, (Midrash Haggadol Deut. 15:17) where the inclusion-exclusion methodology of R. Ismael is shown to lead to the admissibility of any metal piercing instrument and the addition-subtraction methodology of R. Aqiba to the inclusion of all mechanical and the exclusion of chemical means.. Rebbi Yose said, this is a large drill³¹²In Sifry Deut # 122, Midrash Haggadol Deut. on Deut. 15:17: This is the large awl. The Yerushalmi text seems to be the original.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Jehudah says, that is the engraving-knife. “He shall bring him to the door.³¹³Ex. 21:6; cf. Deut. 15:17.” I could think, even if it was lying flat. The verse says, “or to the door-post”. Since the door-post is upright, so also the door has to be upright³¹⁴Babli 22b, Mekhilta dR.Ismael Neziqin 2, Mekhilta dR.Šim‘on b.Jochai p. 163.: a shame to him and to his family³¹⁵They violated their obligation to support their relative when he could not fend for himself..

HALAKHAH: “Also he can separate his heave” etc. If somebody fixes the harvest of another person without the latter’s knowledge, who receives the goodwill⁵⁴That value is estimated by what a third party Israel would be willing to pay to the farmer to have the latter give his heave to his grandson, the son of his daughter and his Cohen son-in-law, or the tithes to a levitic grandson. “To fix” means to separate heave and tithes, to prepare the harvest for use and sale. from the tithes? Rebbi Abbahu says, the one who does the fixing⁵⁵Since he uses his own produce to make the other person’s produce permitted for profane use.. Rebbi Ze‘ira says, the owner of the produce. Rebbi Ze‘ira is consistent since Rebbi Ze‘ira said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish⁵⁶In the Babli, 36b (and also Yoma50b, Zebaḥim 6a, Temurah 2b, 10b), a statement of R. Abbahu in the name of R. Joḥanan states that the person purged only can make the exchange but the goodwill belongs to the person who gives the produce. The Babli also quotes R. Ze‘ira in the same sense as the Yerushalmi but clearly prefers R. Abbahu over R. Ze‘ira against the Yerushalmi., if somebody gave the sacrifice of a nazir⁵⁷Num. 6:14–15. or of a [healed] person afflicted with skin disease⁵⁸Lev. 14:10., the person purged makes (heave)⁵⁹This word, found in the ms. and the editio princeps, makes no sense since the sacrifices are given to the Cohen who alone directs the purging ceremony. With all commentaries one has to read תְמוּרָה “substitution” instead of תְרוּמָה “heave”, a simple metathesis. It is asserted that if somebody dedicates an animal as somebody else’s obligatory sacrifice, then only the person for whom the sacrifice is destined may substitute another animal (which action is sinful, Lev. 27:9–10). If the donor would substitute another animal after dedication, the action would be invalid and the substitute profane as before. In analogy, R. Simeon ben Laqish must hold that sanctified food can be disposed of only by the person whose obligation is satisfied by the sanctification.. The Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: “Also he can separate his heave and tithes with his knowledge.⁶⁰In that case, A would make a donation of the value of the goodwill to B while B is forbidden to receive any gain from A!” Explain it, that [it was stipulated] that the other should not get the goodwill⁶¹This stipulation overrides any general rule and makes the transaction legal..

HALAKHAH: And following Ben Azzai, why the [poor]⁷⁶Corrector’s addition from B. sinner? He brought his log with him, and following the rabbis he brings a lamb⁷⁷As explained in Note 75.. What are the libations for a mother sheep⁷⁸Since there is a difference between the libations needed for a young male sheep and those for an adult male, why does one not make the same distinction for females?? Since we stated, “ ‘lamb’ serves for the libations of sheep and goats, large or small, male or female,” this implies that the libations of a mother sheep are like the libations of a lamb. It is written⁷⁹Num. 15:11., so you shall do for one bull, or for one ram, or an animal from sheep or goats.⁸⁰Sifry Num.107. This tells that He did not differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Since one could argue, an animal from the flock needs libations, a bovine animal needs libations. Since we find that He distinguished between the libations for a sheep and the libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. The verse says, so you shall do for one bull; this implies that He did not distinguish between libations for a calf and libations for a bull. Why was it said, or for a ram? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a yearling and libations for a two-year old, so we should differentiate between libations for a two-years old and a three-years old. The verse says, or for one ram. Why was it said, or for an animal from sheep? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a young female sheep and libations for a mother sheep. The verse says, or for an animal from sheep. Why was it said, or a goat? Since one could argue, if we find that He differentiated between libations for a sheep and libations for a ram, so we should differentiate between libations for a kid goat and libations for a bellwether. The verse says, or for a goat, it compared the smallest kid goat to the largest bellwether⁸¹The distinction by age applicable to sheep is not applicable to goats.. Since one needs three log, so the other needs three log.

If leprous stones were turned into lime, some Tannaїm state they rose from their impurity¹¹⁵Since they are no longer stones.; some Tannaїm state they did not rise from their impurity. For him who stated they rose from their impurity, are they permitted¹¹⁶For usufruct., but for him who stated they did not rise from their impurity, are they forbidden? Even for him who stated they rose from their impurity, they are forbidden since it is written (Lev. 14:44): “A cursed plague”, it should be cursed and you shall have no usufruct from it. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The ashes of everything burned are permitted except ashes coming from idolatry. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Joseph objected before Rebbi Joḥanan: There are the ashes¹¹⁷The lime produced by burning limestone. of the (leprous) house which do not come from idolatry and you say they are forbidden! He said to him, there is a difference since it is written “tearing down, tearing down¹¹⁸Since for idolatry the same root implies prohibition of usufruct (Deut. 12:3), including the ashes of holy trees, for the leprous house the root נתץ (Lev. 14:45) must mean the same (cf. Berakhot 7, Note 41)..”

Rebbi Abin said, only if the roof is at least four [cubits] square. Just as a house does not induce ṭevel unless it is at least four [cubits] square, so the roof does not exempt unless it is at least four [cubits] square, as it is stated¹¹⁴A similar baraita in Babli Sukkah 3a/b.: A house less than four [cubits] square is free from the obligations of mezuzah¹¹⁵Deut. 6:9, 11:20. and the parapet¹¹⁶Deut. 22:8., from the obligation of eruv¹¹⁷If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193)., does not induce ṭevel, is not counted as a connection to a town¹¹⁸On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house.; he who makes a vow not to be in a house may sit there; one does not give it four cubits before its entrance door¹¹⁹In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance of each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload. This does not apply to a small hut.; it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee¹²⁰Lev. 25:30.; it cannot become impure by scale disease¹²¹Lev. 14:34 ff., and its owner does not return from the army because of it¹²²Deut. 20:5..

Mishnah²¹⁶Quote from Mishnah 6. The entire paragraph is repeated in Chapter 6, on Mishnah 3.: “Similarly, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux.” It was stated²⁶⁰Babli 13a, Tosephta 1:14.: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, look how far purity did spread, as it is said²⁶¹Gen. 30:30., for the little which you had expanded mightily; ²⁶²1Chr. 4:38. The implication is that in both cases the increase was the reward of exact observation of the rules of purity.and their families expanded mightily. They did not decide to say, the pure may not eat with the impure²⁶³From the parallels it is clear that one should not read “the pure may not eat with the impure (m.)” but “the pure may not eat with the impure (f.)”, i. e., a husband may not eat with his wife during her menstrual impurity. They did not have to spell this out because people by themselves followed this rule., but they said, the male sufferer from gonorrhea should not eat with a female sufferer from flux²⁶⁴As an example of the general rule that a male may not eat with a woman with whom he could not sleep.; therefore the male sufferer from gonorrhea with a female sufferer from skin disease is permitted²⁶⁵Since a female sufferer from skin disease is not restricted in her sexual activity as will be shown in the next sentence.. He shall dwell outside his tent²⁶⁶Lev. 14:8. The “tent” is an euphemism for the wife with whom he sleeps, as in Deut. 5:27, where Moses reports that he was commanded by God to tell the people “to return to their tents” after the epiphany of Sinai where they had been forbidden intercourse for three days prior (Ex. 19:15), except for Moses who was commanded “to stay with Me” (Deut. 5:28).
The use of the masculine suffix, his tent, is interpreted to exclude the female from restriction of sexual activity. The verse refers to the healed sufferer from skin disease in the process of his purification. There is a dispute whether the prohibition of sexual relations extends to the time of actual sickness. The Babylonian sources [Keritut 8b, also Moˋed qatan 7a; Sifra Mesoraˋ Parashah 2(11)] are unanimous that the prohibition does not extend. This also seems to be implied by Mishnah Negaˋim 14:2. But the text here implies that any male sufferer from skin disease is forbidden sexual relations (which in Sifra is labelled as opinion of R. Yose ben R. Jehudah.) but not outside her tent. A male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from flux is forbidden; a male sufferer from skin disease with a female sufferer from skin disease is forbidden²⁶⁷Since the prohibitions only depend on the status of the male..

HALAKHAH: ¹³²Partial parallels are in the Babli, 43a; Sifry Deut. 194; Tosephta 7:17.“Who built a house”, not only who built; if he bought, inherited, or it was given to him as a gift, from where? The verse says, “the man,” “who is the man”¹³³In the interpretation of Rashi, this means that the verse would have been intelligible if the word האיש were missing: מִ אֲשֶׁה בָּנָה “Who built …”. Therefore, the additional word must imply an extension of the circle of those who have to go and start using their new property.. From where he who builds a barn, a cow-shed, a wood-shed, a storage facility, from where? The verse says, “who builds”. I could think that one who builds a portico¹³⁴A formal structure at the entrance to a courtyard common to several houses. It has no walls and confers no privacy., a covered walkway¹³⁵Greek ἐξέδρα, cf. Ma‘serot 3:6, Note 101., and a verandah would return; the verse says “house”; the house is distinguished by the fact that it can be used as a dwelling¹³⁶Even if it is used as agricultural facility, a barn etc. could be used as a dwelling, having walls on all sides.. This excludes those items which cannot be dwellings. It also excludes a house which does not enclose four by four cubits. As it was stated¹³⁷Ma‘serot 3:7, Notes 114–122. Babli Sukkah 3a/b.: A house which does not enclose four by four cubits is free from the obligation of a parapet¹³⁸Deut. 22:8., or a mezuzah¹³⁹Deut. 6:9, 11:20., or an erub¹⁴⁰If a courtyard belongs to a single owner except that a hut enclosing an area less that four cubits square belongs to another person, that courtyard may be used on the Sabbath by the majority owner without an eruv (cf. Demay 1, Notes 192–193).. It also does not induce ṭevel for tithes¹⁴¹Freshly harvested produce may be eaten untithed. Once the harvest has been removed to a storage area, it is forbidden as food until heave and tithes were given; cf. Ma‘serot 3:5–8. A small shed does not qualify as a storage area. and one does not give it four cubits in front of its door¹⁴²In a courtyard belonging to several owners, the four cubits in front of the entrance to each house are the private domain of this house, to be used to load and unload, and is out of bounds for the other owners. This does not apply to a small hut., and it is not counted as a connection to the town¹⁴³On the Sabbath, one may not go outside one’s town more than 2000 cubits (cf. Peah 8, Note 56). Any house which is within 70 cubits of a house or the city wall of the town is also counted as part of the town; the count of 2000 cubits starts only at the outermost house. A small building does not count as a house., and one who forswears any use of a house is permitted to sit in it¹⁴⁴In popular language, a small shelter is not called a house. Therefore, a person vowing not to sit in a house may sit in a small shelter., and it does not remain with the buyer in the Jubilee year¹⁴⁵It is agricultural property, not a city dwelling; Lev. 25:30., and it cannot become impure by disease¹⁴⁶Lev. 14:34 ff. The rules of diseased structures are explicitly restricted to “a house of the Land of your inheritance”., and its owner does not become exempt from the war because of it.

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

MISHNAH: The entire day is qualified for reading the Scroll, and to read the Hallel¹⁰⁵Ps. 113–118, to be recited on holidays. The recitation of Hallel after morning prayers is customary, not obligatory., and to blow the shofar¹⁰⁶On New Year’s Day. If a person is unable to go to the synagogue, he may hear the required sounds during the entire day., and to take the lulav, and for the musaf prayer¹⁰⁷The recitation of musaf after the Torah reading is customary, not obligatory., and for musaf sacrifices, for confessions with bulls¹⁰⁸The confessions of the anointed priest (Lev. 4:3) and the representatives of the people (Lev. 4:14), as well as the musaf sacrifices, may be performed at any time after the daily morning and before the evening sacrifices., and for the declaration of tithes¹¹⁰The farmer’s declaration, Deut. 26:13–15, as well as the declaration on the occasion of presentation of first fruits, Deut. 26:3–10. and for the confessions of the Day of Atonement¹¹¹The confession of the High Priest (Lev. 16:21)..
¹¹⁶A continuation of the sentence starting with: “the entire day is qualified.” For leaning on¹¹⁷Confession of the votary when bringing his sacrifice, while leaning on the head of the sacrificial animal; Lev. 1:4, 3:2,8,13,4:24,29,33., slaughter, weaving¹¹⁸An act required for certain sacrifices, mostly well-being sacrifices, Lev. 7:30. and presenting¹¹⁹Presenting flour sacrifices and first fruits to the altar., taking a handful¹²⁰Of the flour offering to be burned on the altar., burning on the altar, breaking the neck¹²¹Of a bird offered as elevation or purification sacrifice (Lev. 1:15,5:8)., receiving¹²²The sacrificial blood to be brought to the altar., sprinkling¹²³The blood on the horns of the altar., and to let the suspected adulteress drink¹²⁴Num. 5:11–31., and to break the neck of the calf¹²⁵In case of an unsolved murder, Deut. 21:1–9., and to purify the sufferer from skin disease¹²⁶Lev. 14:1–32..

MISHNAH: What is shaving in impurity? He was sprinkled on the third and seventh [days]¹⁸⁷Since the only impurity which defiles the nazir is the impurity of the dead, he must have water with ashes from the Red Cow sprinkled on him on the 3^rd and 7^th days of his impurity (Num. 19)., shaves on the seventh, and brings his sacrifices on the eighth¹⁸⁸As prescribed in Num. 6:9,10.. If he shaved on the eighth, he may bring his sacrifices¹⁸⁹Two birds (Num. 6:10) and a sheep (Num. 6:12). on the same day, the words of Rebbi Aqiba. Rebbi Ṭarphon asked him, what is the difference between this one and the sufferer from skin disease¹⁹⁰Mishnah Nega‘im 14:3 states that the person healed from skin disease can bring his sacrifices only after the sundown following his immersion in a miqweh. According to R. Aqiba [readings of Tosaphot, 44b s.v. א״ל; Maimonides (Commentary ad loc.; Meḥusere Kappara 4:2); see the readings in Sifra Meṣora‘ Pereq 2(7); another reading in the Commentary attributed to Rashi] this implies that he has to bring his sacrifices on the 9^th if he shaved on the 8^th.? He told him, the purification of this one is bound to his days¹⁸⁸As prescribed in Num. 6:9,10., but the purification of the sufferer from skin disease is bound to his shaving¹⁹¹Lev. 14:9 prescribes the immersion of the sufferer from skin disease after his shaving but Num. 6:9 requires the impure nazir to shave “on the day of his purity”, i. e., after the second sprinkling and his immersion.. He cannot bring his sacrifices unless the sun had set for him¹⁹²It is a general principle that immersion in water makes ritually pure only for profane places or food; for sancta only the following sundown brings purity, Lev. 22:7; cf. Soṭah 5:2, Note 42..

HALAKHAH: “They are not liable for hearing the sound of an imprecation,” etc. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the reason of Rebbi Yose the Galilean is, if he is poor and cannot afford it⁸³Lev. 14:21. This is a wrong quote since it refers to the sacrifice of the healed sufferer from skin disease. The expression used in Lev. 5 is וְאִם־לֹ֨א תַגִּ֣יעַ יָדוֹ֮ “if it is out of his reach” for the poor person and וְאִם־לֹא֩ תַשִּׂ֨יג יָד֜וֹ “if he cannot afford” for the poorest.. Somebody who is apt to fall into poverty; this excludes the Anointed⁸⁴He is not mentioned in our Mishnah text, but Mishnah 8 states that the High Priest is exempt according to everybody; only for the king does R. Aqiba disagree; Babli 9a. According to Tosephta 1:10, the king is exempted only for disregarding a request for testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (since his diadem is a permanent atonement for imperfect sacrifices, Ex. 28:38.)
The High Priest is required (Lev.21:10) to be the richest priest; if he is not, the other priests have to make him so. R. Joseph David Sinzheim (Yad David on Horaiot) notes that the High Priest had the choice always to officiate at the burning of incense. Any other priest was given only a once in a lifetime occasion for this (Mishnah Yoma 2:4) since presenting the incense made the presenter rich (explicit in the Babli, implicit in the Yerushalmi, Yoma Halakhah 2:4, 40a 12). The king naturally has taxing powers.
Since king and High Priest are never able to bring a sacrifice according to the rules of the poor (Lev. 5:7–10) or the very poor (vv. 11–13), they are prohibited from ever bringing a sacrifice depending on the offerer’s wealth. who is not apt to fall into poverty. [⁸⁵Text of B. It seems that this text presupposes a Mishnah mentioning only the Anointed; no such Mishnah is known. They objected: There is the prince who is not apt to fall into poverty.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it shall be if he becomes guilty of any of these⁸⁶Lev. 5:5.. He who can be liable for all of them is liable for part of them; but one who cannot be liable for all of them is not liable for part of them⁸⁷Since the king is exempt from testimony and the High Priest for violations of impurity (Note 84), neither of them is qualified to bring a sacrifice for all cases enumerated in vv. 1–4; they are not under the rules of vv. 6–7.. Rebbi Isaac asked: Then he should not become impure by skin disease since he is not apt (easily and then) [to fall]⁸⁸The text in brackets, from B, is the only one making sense; the text of the ms., in parentheses, seems to be a scribal error. into poverty or the deepest of poverty⁸⁹Since the verse quoted at the start of the Halakhah refers to the poor sufferer healed from skin disease. But there is no verse requiring that the sufferer from skin disease be able to bring all possible sacrifices; the question does not deserve an answer.. Rav Hoshaia asked: Then a woman should not be liable for entering the Temple. Does the woman not bring⁹⁰Since a woman cannot be a formal witness in court, she cannot be the subject of an imprecation forcing here to testify. But the question is moot since women after childbirth are ordered in Lev. 12:6–8 to bring a sacrifice after being impure.? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The reason of Rebbi Aqiba, this is the offering of Aaron and his sons⁹¹Lev. 6:13, the daily flour offering of the High Priest, identical in quantity to the variable sacrifice of the very poor. Babli 9a.. This one he brings; he does not bring another tenth of an ephah. Rebbi Zeˋira asked before Rebbi Yasa⁹²This is the correct attribution, against the text of B. may he not bring a voluntary offering? He told him, yes. He does not bring an obligatory one; he may bring a voluntary one.

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..

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..

Rav said, waving stops the nazir²³³The nazir is not permitted to drink wine or become impure unless he perfomed the waving of his well-being sacrifice. This is also quoted in the Babli, 46a/b, but is rejected there as practice.. But did we not state: “The teachings for the nazir,²³⁴Num. 6:21.” whether or not he has wings²³⁵Tosephta 1:5, Babli 46b. “The teaching of the nazir” must be applicable to everybody, whether he has arms and hands (“wings”) or not. But since the wavings have to be given “on the nazir’s hands”, how can they be absolutely required if the nazir has no hands?? What Rav says, if he does, as it was stated thus: For somebody able to wave, waving stops him; for somebody unable to wave, waving does not stop him. Samuel says, measure²³⁶It is unclear what this means. Most authors emend “measure” to “waving”. stops a nazir, as for the waves and thumbs of a sufferer from skin disease²³⁷The poor sufferer from skin disease must wave his reparation offering (Lev. 14:24); every healed sufferer from skin disease must receive blood and oil on his right thumb and great toe (Lev. 14:14,17,25,28).. But did we not state: “The teachings for the sufferer from skin disease,²³⁸Lev. 14:2.” whether or not he has thumbs? He explains it following Rebbi Eliezer who said, he puts it on their place²³⁹Mishnah Nega‘im 14:9; SifraMeṣora‘Pereq 3(11); quoted similarly in the Babli Yoma 61b (cf. Diqduqe Soferim Yoma p. 171 Note ח). In Babli Nazir, 47b, (with a different editorial history) R. Eliezer holds that he cannot ever be purified; R. Simeon is quoted parallel to R. Eliezer in the other sources..

[A house in] Jerusalem cannot contract ritual impurity of leprous marks. Nor can it be judged as a condemned city. Nor can one build ledges, balconies, or water channels in public spaces, because they create an enclosure for (death and) impurity.¹Which would render ritually impure anyone who shared the space with a corpse. Nor may a corpse be left there overnight. Nor may human bones be carried through the city. Nor may a stranger be given permanent residence there. Nor may graves be placed there, except for the graves of members of the House of David or the prophetess Hulda, which have been there from the days of the first prophets. (And when they removed all the graves from the city, why were these not removed?) They say there was a grotto there that would take all the impurities out into the Kedron River. One may not plant any plants there. Nor may one make a garden or an orchard there, aside from the rose gardens which have been there since the days of the first prophets. Nor may one raise (geese or) chickens there, let alone pigs. Nor may garbage heaps be established there, because of impurity.²Because repugnant creatures are attracted to such heaps, and they impart ritual impurity upon their death. A stubborn and rebellious son cannot be judged there, said Rabbi Natan, for it says (Deuteronomy 21:19), “His father and mother shall grab him and take him to the elders of the city, to the gate of his place”; but this is not his city, nor his place. Houses sold there cannot include the land they are on. [Houses cannot be sold as a permanent possession] in the city after twelve months. Rent may not be collected there, except for [the use of] beds and mattresses. Rabbi Yehudah said: even rent for beds and mattresses [was not collected].
What would they do with the skins of the sacrificed animals? They would give them to the owners of guest houses. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel said: innkeepers were inside the city, and the owners of guest houses were outside. The innkeepers would buy sheepskins with fine wool for four or five sela and then sell them to the people of Jerusalem, and that is how these homeowners got rich.