Komentarz do Kapłańska 13:30

IF A MAN OR WOMAN HATH AN AFFLICTION UPON THE HEAD OR THE BEARD. “Scripture intends to differentiate between a plague which is on a place where hair grows, and a plague on the flesh, for as regarding a plague on the flesh the symptom of impurity is white hair, while the symptom of a plague on a place where the hair grows is gold-colored hair — that the black hair has turned into gold-colored. 30. ‘NETHEK HU’ (IT IS A SCALL). This is the name of the plague on a place where hair grows.” This is Rashi’s language.
It would appear from this language that the difference between a plague upon the head or beard and a plague in the skin of the flesh, is that which Rashi mentioned, namely, the white hair and the gold-colored; thus if a plague occurs in any of its four colors¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. in a place where hair grows upon the head or beard, and if the hair became gold-colored, then the person is impure, just as he is impure if the hair turned white in a plague on the skin of the flesh. But how is it possible to say so! Rashi himself has written [further on]: “As the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. [It is like the color of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with plagues of the skin of the flesh, namely] that it makes one impure by means of any of the four white colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. and it is not to be treated like the color of the nethakim (scalls) on the place where hair grows, which do not render a person impure by reason of the four colors: the se’eith and its secondary shade, and bahereth and its secondary shade!”¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). Now if [a nethek] does not render the person impure by means of one of these four colors,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. then by what color and under what condition does it render one impure? Scripture has mentioned only the signs necessary for declaring him absolutely impure, namely, if gold-colored hair appeared in the nethek or spreading thereof took place¹⁰⁸Verses 30, 36. [but, according to Rashi, Scripture has left unspecified what color the nethek must be originally, in order that it be subject to inspection]! Indeed, it seems that the Rabbi [Rashi] thought Scripture informed us of the name of the plague upon the head or beard by stating ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall)¹⁰⁹Verse 30. meaning that this is its particular name, the designation by which it is recognized. Thus Scripture mentioned in the case of the plagues [in the skin of the flesh] their names and their colors, namely, ‘bahereth l’vanah’ (a bright spot which is white),¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),¹¹¹Ibid., Verse 10. and in the case of the head it also mentioned its name [namely, nethek], for by that designation it is known, and that name indeed Scripture declared to be impure, and then it went back and explained the symptoms [of the nethek] for the person to be declared absolutely impure at the end [i.e., after he had been put in quarantine for a week]. This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] opinion on the nethek (scall).
This interpretation of Rashi’s opinion is further borne out by his words when he said that the sense of the following section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head¹¹²Further, Verse 40. is to say that if a man’s hair falls off his head and he becomes bald, he is clean; that is, “he is clean from the impurity of nethakim (scalls in a hair-spot) on the head,” and he is no longer rendered impure by the kind of plague called nethek, but instead he is subject to the laws of a plague on the skin of the flesh, [namely] se’eith and its secondary shade, for since there is no hair there [after becoming bald] he is excluded from the law applying to the head or the beard.
But all this is not so. For as long as the head or beard contain hair, they do not render the person impure at all by means of any of the colors of leprosy [since they are not “the skin of the body”]. But when baldness affects a certain part of the head, the hair falling out from its very roots, and that place becomes smooth and clear of any hair, and then there grows in that baldness a gold-colored thin hair¹⁰⁹Verse 30. — that is the impure plague [dealt with here]. It is for that reason that it is called nethek [of the root nothak — “to tear away”] because the hair has become removed from there, and it is not merely a name, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote. Rather, for as his name is, so is he,¹¹³I Samuel 25:25. for [in order that the law of nethek should apply], it is necessary that the hair falls out [on the head or the beard] in a place [at least] the size of a bean, and after the natural falling out of this first hair from that place, if that gold-colored “afflicted” hair springs up, it is a symptom of impurity. This does not apply if the gold-colored hair come there before the baldness. So also we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁴Negaim 7:1. “If [a bahereth] appeared on the head or the beard,¹¹⁵Now the head or the beard become impure only by a nethek (scall), and not by a bahereth; (a bright white spot). Thus when the bahereth first appeared on the head or the beard, the person remained pure. Later on when he became bald, in which case the law of bahereth might have applied, he also remains pure, because the bahereth preceded the baldness. and then the head or the beard became bald, they are pure. If it were on the head or the beard before these grew hair, and they then grew hair and again became bald, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov declares them impure, since both in the beginning and at the end they were impure. But the Sages declare them to be pure.” And with regards to gold-colored hair which precede [the nethek] we have also been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶Ibid., 10:4. “If gold-colored hair preceded the nethek (scall) it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah declares it impure. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: It neither renders the person impure, nor does it afford him protection.”¹¹⁷The law of hair which has become gold-colored because of the nethek provides that if there be two black hairs in it, the person is pure [although all the other hair have turned gold-colored]. But if there be in it two gold-colored hairs that were there before the nethek came, and turned the other black hair gold-colored, they do not afford protection to the nethek, and the person is impure. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s statement: “It neither renders the person impure [if all the hair turned gold-colored before the nethek appeared], nor does it afford protection” [thus we do not say that since it was naturally gold-colored before the nethek appeared, and not as a result of it, it is considered like black hair which renders the person pure, because although it is not in itself a symptom of the plague, it is nonetheless unable to protect the person from impurity unless its natural colors is black]. This whole topic is similarly taught also in the Sifra.¹¹⁸Torath Kohanim, Tazria 8:6.
The reason why Scripture does not mention “the baldness” at first [but instead begins Verse 29 before us by stating: If a man or woman hath an affliction upon the head or the beard], is because it mentioned with reference to the plague on the head or beard a “deep appearance” and “gold-colored hair,”¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and it is impossible that the appearance thereof should be deep in the same way that the color of the sun appears deeper than the shadow, as long as a person’s black natural hair is still upon him. Therefore Scripture spoke about the customary way of people, for when plagues come upon their head, [that part of the head] first becomes bald, and then a plague arises in the baldness, in which the thin short gold-colored hair grows. Then [in Verse 30] Scripture explains ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall), in order to make it quite clear that he is not to be declared impure unless there was a baldness.
Now in the opinion of most commentators¹¹⁹So clearly set forth by Rabad in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath, 8:1, and in 16:1. this plague, namely, the nethek, need not have a bahereth (a bright spot) or se’eith (rising) nor their subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). nor any change of appearance in the skin of the head, but as soon as the hair fell out from a spot the size of a bean on the head or beard, and is entirely uprooted from its roots, that is the plague, and if thin gold-colored hair appears in it, the person is impure. This is the leprosy of the head or of the beard.¹⁰⁹Verse 30. For Scripture first declared the person impure if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it gold-colored thin hair,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. and then it mentioned that if the appearance thereof is not deeper than the skin, that the plague must be shut up for a week;¹²⁰Verse 31. then it declared him to be impure if [after this week] the nethek spread in the skin,¹²¹Verse 36. the sense thereof being that [in the case of the spreading of the nethek] the appearance thereof need not be deeper than the skin, nor different in any way [for him to be declared impure]. Now surely these two symptoms [of impurity in the nethek], namely, spreading of the plague and appearance of gold-colored hair, are alike in their laws. If so, the verses intend to teach us that whether the appearance of the nethek is as deep as the appearance of a bahereth, or whether it is not as deep or is not different in any way [from the rest of the skin], as soon as the baldness occurs, the person is rendered impure if gold-colored hair appears in it or if the nethek spreads in the skin. There are many Beraithoth¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. in the Sifra¹²²See in Seder Vayikra, Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. taught on this subject.
Yet [despite all this] it would appear that after the hair falls off from a spot on the head, it is not to be deemed a plague until a bahereth or its subsidiary species appears in that bald spot, or a se’eith or its subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). and then the bahereth or se’eith renders the person impure if it grows gold-colored hair, just [as the bahereth or se’eith] render impure if in the skin of the flesh the black hair has turned white.¹²³Above, Verse 3. For our verse which mentions an affliction upon the head or the beard, and then states, and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin,¹⁰⁹Verse 30. is alluding to the colors of the plagues previously mentioned,¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. meaning specifically bahereth and its subsidiaries and also se’eith and its subsidiaries.¹⁰⁷Sid ha’heichal is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). And this section is singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement not similar to the general proposition, namely, that the colors of the plagues on the head do not render a person impure until the hair has fallen off. The effect of this is sometimes a more lenient ruling, and sometimes a more stringent one. The more lenient ruling is that they do not render the person impure by means of white hair, and the more stringent one is that he is to be pronounced impure by reason of the gold-colored hair. And the interpretation of the verse, And if the priest see the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the plague of the scall seven days,¹²⁰Verse 31. is similar to that mentioned above [in the section dealing with the plagues of the skin of the flesh]: And if ‘bahereth’ (the bright spot) be white in the skin of the flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,¹¹⁰Above, Verse 4. for the expression ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall) [here in Verse 31] alludes to the principle that the [four] colors of the “plagues” apply to the nethek as well.
This matter requires further study of the Tosephta¹²⁴Literally: “Addition.” The Tosephta is a collection of Beraithoth, compiled by Rabbi Chiya, soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The books of the Tosephta follow closely those of the Mishnah. Hence the expression here, “the Tosephta to Tractate Negaim.” to Tractate Negaim. For we have been taught there as follows:¹²⁵Tosephta Negaim 1:2. “Nethakim (scalls) cause impurity in all colors, even white on black or black on white, and they cause impurity by means of thin yellow hair which appears to be gold-colored.” Thus far [is the language of the Tosephta]. It would appear from this text that there has to be in the bald part some [distinguishing] color of a plague, either white on the skin of a black-haired man, like the [four] colors of plagues, or even a black plague on the skin of a white-haired man, like “the black murphia” which doctors mention, since Scripture always speaks of ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall),¹²⁰Verse 31. indicating that there has to be a plague in the nethek, but it did not specify any colors for them as it did in the case of [the plagues of] the skin of the flesh. And the second section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head,¹¹²Further, Verse 40. teaches that the law of nethakim applies only if the hair falls off the middle of the head, and hair remains surrounding the nethek on all sides. But if the hair falls off from the back of the head, or towards the face, and that whole side becomes bald [and a plague appeared therein], its status is not to be determined by the symptoms of impurity of the head or beard [namely, gold-colored hair or the spreading of the nethek], but rather by the symptoms of plagues of the skin of the flesh [namely, the appearance of white hair or the spreading of the plague or quick flesh]. The reason for this [distinction between the various locations of the baldness of the head] is that it is in the nature of many people that some of their hair at the sides of the head, in the back or in front becomes bald, and the falling off of the hair there is no sign of sickness, but instead is like the rest of the body. But when the hair falls off from the middle of the head, the place where there normally is hair, it can only be a plague which caused it, that plague in our language being termed tinim,¹²⁶In one Ramban manuscript: tirna. and in Arabic it is called al sa’afah. Accordingly Scripture excluded from this law hair which falls out from the front of his head and the back, since it is usual for people to become bald at those places. And the verse which states, But if there be ‘bakarachath’ (in the bald towards the back of the head), or ‘bagabachath’ (the bald forehead), a reddish-white plague,¹²⁷Verse 42. means that these parts of the head convey impurity as does the rest of the body — by the [four] colors of plagues whether there is a reddish mixture in the white or it be a plain white. Scripture further states as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶Further, Verse 43. This means that [if there is baldness towards the back of the head or the forehead] he is also certified absolutely as impure by quick flesh or the spreading of the plague, which is “the appearance of leprosy” that is certified absolutely as impure in plagues of the skin of the flesh. Now our Rabbis have mentioned that it is not certified as impure by means of white hair, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹²⁸Negaim 4:3. “Quick flesh causes impurity bakarachath (in baldness towards the back of the head), or bagabachath (baldness in the forehead), whereas it is not so with the white hair.” It is also so expressed in the Torath Kohanim.¹²⁹Torath Kohanim, Negaim 11:2.
But some of the commentators¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. stated that the sense of the Scriptural sections is to differentiate between a person afflicted with a nethek [which is discussed in Verses 29-37] and with baldness [as mentioned in Verses 40-44]; and the meaning of the matter is that karachath and gabachath both denote plucking out of the hair in such a manner that it will never grow again, such as where he applied a certain ointment to the hair of his head which caused it to fall out, or where it fell out at its roots naturally, when the moisture [feeding it] dried up. Thus the meaning of this section according to this opinion is that at first Scripture spoke [in Verses 29-37] of nethek, which is a falling off or cutting of the hair, similar to the expressions: ‘v’nathuk v’charuth’ (or torn off, or cut);¹³¹Further, 22:24. as soon as the soles of the priests’ feet ‘nithku’ (were drawn up) unto the dry ground.¹³²Joshua 4:18. Then Scripture states [in Verses 40-44] that if the head be yimareit, meaning that the hair was plucked out by force, thus leaving the bald and shiny like burnished brass,¹³³I Kings 7:45. similar to that which is written, it is furbished that it may glitter¹³⁴Ezekiel 21:15. which as is known will never grow hair again — that is not a nethek, but rather this man ‘keireiach hu’ (he is bald in the back of his head)¹³⁵Verse 40. or gibeiach hu’ (he is bald near his forehead),¹³⁶Verse 41. as other people who are bald, and he is clean¹³⁷Verses 40-41.. But if there be in this baldness towards the back or front of the head one of the [four] colors of plagues¹⁰⁵The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107., he will be subject to the same law of impurity as is the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, and through their symptoms, namely, quick flesh and the spreading of the plague in the skin [after having been shut up for a week]; except that the Sages in their interpretation excluded from [these symptoms of impurity] white hair [which in the skin of the flesh is a sign of impurity but not in baldness towards the back or front of the head]. The reason for this is that the hair of the head has been plucked out in such a way that it will never grow again, and even if a few hair appear by chance, they will never be black [so that they could through turning white on account of the plague, serve as a sign of impurity], nor will they have the characteristics of hair, but they will be merely some weak form thereof and white. This is the opinion of the French scholars in the commentary to Tractate Negaim.¹³⁰Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. The sense of the Mishnayoth and Beraithoth taught there [in that tractate] tend to support their words. If so, nethek [mentioned in Verses 29-37] is the sickness [called in Arabic] sa’afah [as stated above], or the well-known sicknesses called “the sickness of the fox,” and “the path of the snake,” all these being forms of sickness which can be remedied [so that the hair grows again]; but “the plucking out” of the hair [mentioned in Verses 40-44] is a form of baldness for which there is no help or remedy at all.

ובו שער צהוב AND THERE BE IN IT A GOLD-COLOURED HAIR — This means that the black hair that was in it has turned into gold-coloured (cf. Rashi on v. 3).

נתק, a skin affliction in a part of the skin normally covered with hair is called a נתק. The word implies that the affliction uproots the hair follicles with the hair. This hair was not pulled out by human hands or by some kind of chemical or medication. The fact that some black hair remains in the skin proves that notwithstanding the other symptoms suggesting that the person suffering the affliction is ritually impure, the black hair’s presence saves him from such a determination by the priest.

שער צהב דק, thin blond or yellowish hair; according to Torat Kohanim the word "yellowish" is intended to exclude hair which is of a greenish, reddish or black colour. The use of the word "yellowish," serves to exclude all colour except white. The colour white did not need exclusion. We might have arrived at this through simple logic. Just as the colour yellow is not a colour mentioned in connection with other afflictions of the skin considered as leading to ritual impurity, so the colour white, which is the prime colour for skin-afflictions resulting in ritual impurity would most certainly also qualify for such impurity if it occurred in the area of the beard. The Torah therefore mentions "yellowish" to tell us that white would not qualify as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in this legislation dealing with hair discolouring in the area where the beard grows. I find it difficult to follow this קל וחומר, inference from minor to major. Maybe the word צהב, yellowish, is needed to teach us the basic law that this colour if present in a נתק, scall, confers ritual impurity on the person concerned even though the colour has no negative implications in other skin-discolourations. If so, white would cause ritual impurity in the case of a scall just as it does in other skin afflictions which the Torah has legislated previously. This reasoning is reinforced by the mere fact that the author of Torat Kohanim did not spell out a קל וחומר saying: "if yellowish, which does not normally confer ritual impurity etc.," until after he had established that yellowish does confer ritual impurity in a scall. From the sequence of the reasoning in Torat Kohanim you may infer that the Torah did not exclude your right to make the קל וחומר we have just mentioned. If so, how does the word צהב, yellowish, demolish the validity of the קל וחומר?

נתק, the name applied to these kinds of scabs in the area where the hair grows.

נתק הוא, “it is a scall.” This kind of tzoraat is so named as the hair has been removed from that spot. The word is used in halachah for certain commandments which are considered as separated, literally “torn away” from where they belong (Chulin 141) [When a negative commandment appears in the guise of a positive commandment it is considered as לאו הניתק לעשה, “a negative commandment couched in terms of a positive commandment”. As a result, generally speaking, the penalty normally applicable when violating a negative commandment does not apply in such a case. Ed.] The expression נתק also occurs in Joshua 4,18 in connection with the priests who carried the Holy Ark into and across the Jordan. The text says נתקו כפות רגלי הכהנים, “the soles of the feet of the priests were separated, pulled, etc.”
After the original hair had been pulled out, if subsequently the new hair is blond, thin, this is a sign of ritual impurity (contamination caused by the disease). The bald spot contaminates either by blond (yellow) hair or expansion of the afflicted area. (Negaim 10,1). If, however the hair which grows back from that follicle is black, this is a sign that the affliction has healed and the priest can declare such a person as ritually pure (after he has undergone the necessary procedures).

The black hair in it [turned] golden. [Rashi knows this] from that which is written (v. 31): “When the kohein will see the skin eruption of nesek,” [thus,] “skin-eruption” is connected to “nesek”: Just as [we find concerning] the skineruption the white hair in it only makes one impure if it turned [from being black], so too, a nesek, the golden hair in it only makes one impure if it turned, as if it said: “And the hair in the skin-eruption turned golden.”

ובו שער צהוב, “and there is yellow hair on it;” the skin on which hair growth is usually rougher than the skin on which no hair grows. Therefore, when yellow hair appears it is a sure sign that the flesh beneath it is dead and weak.

נתק הוא — this (נתק) is the name of a plague which is on the spot where hair grows.

Such is the name. Otherwise, why does it change the name of this impure skin-eruption from the name of the impure skin-eruption [mentioned] above, as it is written (v. 25): “it is the skin-eruption of tzora’as”? (Re’m).

I must assume therefore that the exegetical approach of Torat Kohanim goes along these lines: "The Torah writes about the afflicted person who has already been mentioned וטמא אותו הכהן, instead of the shorter וטמאו, which the Torah used already on several occasions (verses 8,11,15,20). The extra word אותו is used to exclude a white scall from causing the afflicted person to become ritually impure. We would translate the verse as follows: וטמא אותו, i.e. "the yellowish colour confers impurity;" it is as if the author of Torat Kohanim had said: "the word 'yellowish' teaches that only it and no other colour including white results in ritual purity in this instance." If you will examine what the author of Torat Kohanim has written every other time the Torah wrote וטמא אותו instead of וטמאו, you will find an approach consistent with what he wrote in this instance. Why did he not bother to tell us that he used the word אותו to arrive at his conclusion? The reason may be that he still wanted to use the word דק which preceded the word אותו for an additional exegetical message. A careful scholar does not jump from the right to the left and rely on his reader to read his mind so as not to arrive at a faulty conclusion about his true intentions. You will find that after explaining the exclusion contained in the word אותו, our author of Torat Kohanim explains the exclusion contained in the sequence of the words וטמא אותו הכהן נתק הוא using only the word הוא in that sequence as an exclusion. The reason he did so is because he had already used the word אותו in the sense we explained.

דק, “thin;” as a result, any hair that grows on that skin is also weaker and the growth is less dense.

You may reason that if all this is correct, why do we not use a קל וחומר type of reasoning to prove that just as the colour yellow results in the afflicted person becoming ritually impure when he contracted a נתק, the same should hold true for yellowish hair in other situations where hair is a factor in the afflicted person contracting ritual impurity in connection with skin turned white? The logic is simple. If a white hair which which does not confer ritual impurity when present in a נתק, nevertheless confers ritual impurity when present with other skin afflictions, then a yellow hair which even confers ritual impurity when present only in a נתק, certainly confers ritual impurity when it appears in conjunction with other skin afflictions. Perhaps the very fact that the Torah needed to exclude white as a colour resulting in ritual impurity in the case of a scall was equivalent to telling us that we should not engage in learning the קל וחומר in reverse as applying to situations such as בהרת או שאת. You may wish to read what we have written on Leviticus 14,7 in connection with the Baraitha which explains why the person afflicted with צרעת has to experience seven sprinklings of מים חיים in his purification process as opposed to the person who contacted ritual impurity through contact with a dead body, and who has to undergo only two such sprinklings one each on the third and on the seventh day of his purification rites. This is so in spite of the fact that I could have arrived at the opposite conclusion by using the קל וחומר type of reasoning.

נתק, “it is a scall;” the area on which hair grows is called נתק, the word being a derivative of the verb לנתק, “to tear out,” or “tear apart.”

In that instance, the author falls back on the explanation of the word צהב he has given on our verse here. Why is the colour צהב the only one which confers impurity in the case of a scall? Torat Kohanim explains that this colour symbolises gold. Maimonides explains in his commentary on tractate Nega-im 6,1 that צהב is a colour which is a mixture of red and green. I have seen that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains it as follows: "The word means something close to egg-white in Arabic." It appears therefore that Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra understood the word צהב as ivory coloured. We, who live under Mohammedan rule, know that the Arabic word tzahov means some kind of dim white. This would all contradict the opinion expressed by the Tannaim in the Mishnah. I do not see what purpose would be served to explain words in the Torah in terms of the Arabic language; this would lead to making our Torah into a book of lies, G'd forbid. What is so objectionable in our traditional sources explaining the word צהב as yellowish-gold? I am afraid that Rabbi Ibn Ezra lent his hand to those who make a mockery of our holy Torah. Anyone who toys with commentaries of this nature would do better to suppress them and not to publish them.