Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:10

ומחית A QUICK [RAW FLESH] — sainement in old French English healing; — it means that the part of the white within the “higher-lying white spot” (השאת) has turned to a flesh-colour; this, too, is a symptom of uncleanness; — white hair without healthy flesh, and healthy flesh without white hair . Although healthy flesh is mentioned only in connection with a spot of higher-lying colour, in the case of all pure white colours (snow-white and wool-white) and their shades (lit., derivations) it is also a symptom of uncleanness(cf. Sifra, Tazria Parashat Nega'im, Section 3 1; Mishnah Negaim 4:6).

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE, AND, BEHOLD, IF THERE BE A WHITE RISING IN THE SKIN, AND IT HAVE TURNED THE HAIR WHITE, AND THERE BE QUICK RAW FLESH IN THE RISING. The meaning of this verse is not that it is necessary for both to be present, namely, the white hair and the quick flesh [before the afflicted person is declared impure], since in the first section Scripture declared him impure because of white hair alone;⁹⁹Above, Verse 3. similarly, the appearance of the live flesh alone is a symptom of impurity. If so, the meaning of the verse is: “and it have turned the hair white, or there be quick raw flesh in the rising.” It mentions here white hair in the case of se’eith (rising) although it stated it already in the case of bahereth (bright spot),¹⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 4. in order to teach us that in the case of both colors white hair is a symptom of impurity. Our Rabbis have explained¹⁰¹Torath Kohanim, Negaim 3:7. that the reason [why white hair is mentioned here when it has already been said above that it is a symptom of impurity] is in order to establish the minimum size of the quick flesh [mentioned here], that it must be large enough to contain the white hair, [the smallest number implied] being two.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי, and it has turned the hair white, and there be healthy flesh, etc. The plain meaning of the verse is that two conditions must be present in order for the afflicted person to be ritually impure, 1) healthy flesh, 2) white hair; our sages in Torat Kohanim write as follows: "I might have thought that the person remains "clean" until he develops white hair plus an area of healthy flesh; to teach me that this is not so the Torah wrote: 'it is an old צרעת,' i.e. it is impure and no other symptom is needed. If so, why does our verse speak about white hair and healthy flesh? this teaches that impurity is not decreed unless the area of skin is large enough to accomodate both white hair and healthy flesh." Apparently the inference from the text that healthy flesh alone (when inside the white area) is sufficient cause to declare the person ritually impure was based on the word נושנת; this poses a problem, however; granted that the presence of healthy flesh inside the white area does not need an additional symptom in order for the afflicted person to be declared ritually unclean -as distinct from the presence of white hair alone,- whence do we know that the presence of such healthy flesh by itself results in ritual impurity? Perhaps the word היא in our verse refers back to either one of two symptoms appearing; 1) the hair turning white in which case there is no need for a further symptom; 2) healthy flesh appearing, and not as Korban Aharon explains it as referring only to the appearance of healthy flesh. It is also possible that the rule that an area of healthy flesh within the white area is sufficient by itself to declare the afflicted person ritually impure is derived from the additional words בשר חי at the end of the verse. The words טמא הוא in verse 11 make it plain that no other symptoms were needed. Ignoring the words of Torat Kohanim for the moment, I believe that the absence of the words או מחית בשר חי tells us that if both symptoms exist and the white area covers the entire surface of the skin this indicates that the person is ritually pure, something I could not have inferred if the Torah had written the word או. How would I then have known that the person could be declared "clean" while suffering simultaneously from two symptoms each of which is basically a symptom signifying ritual impurity?

ומחיית בשר חי, with a patch of undiscoloured flesh not like fully ripened skin but raw, like a piece of flesh in the middle of the afflicted scab.

והיא הפכה שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת, “and it has changed hair to white, or that there is healthy live flesh within the white area described previously as שאת;” the letter ו in front of the word ומחית does not mean ”and,” so that both conditions have to be met before the priest must decree absolute isolation of the afflicted person. The letter ו here means “or,” as it does in many instances.

והיא הפכה שער לבן, “and it has changed hair to white,” according to Sifra Negaim 3,6 the Torah speaks of 2 hairs or more. The reason that white hair in that area is a sign of ritual impurity is simply that according to nature these hairs are normally black. If there is a deviation from what is natural this is an indication of something being diseased.

As well as healthy [flesh] without white hair. [Rashi knows this] because later in this section it is written (v. 14), “On the day that healthy flesh appears on him he will become unclean,” which implies that if there is healthy flesh he will become impure even when the hair does not turn white. If so, that which it is written here: “and it has turned the hair white or there is healthy flesh” means: The hair turned white without healthy flesh or there is healthy flesh without the hair turning white.

והיא הפכה, “and it had changed colour;” the word והיא here is spelled with the letter י and not with the letter ו; [as in verses 4,7 and 8. Ed.]

It is a sign of uncleanness. [Rashi knows this] because we include from that which is written, “נגע צרעת”; why does Scripture need to write נגע? It should have written only צרעת [or only נגע]! Rather, [it must be that] it includes every appearance of a נגע if it has the signs which it continues to explain, constitutes a sign of impurity.