Мидраш к Вайикра 13:9

1) (Vayikra 13:9) ("A plague-spot of leprosy, if it be in a man, then he shall be brought to the Cohein. (Vayikra 13:10) And the Cohein shall see, and, behold, a white se'eth in the skin, and it has turned the hair white, and the healthiness (michyah) of living flesh within the se'eth"): "a plague-spot of leprosy": What is the intent of this? From "and, behold, a white se'eth" we learn that a se'eth becomes tamei with a michyah. Whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? (From "a plague-spot of leprosy.") — But does this not follow (even without the verse)? viz.: If we find all of the other appearances to be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through white hair, let them be similar to se'eth vis-à-vis becoming tamei through michyah. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If all of the appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, which does not confer tumah in karachath (back of the head) and gabachath (front of the head, viz. Vayikra 13:42-43), how much more so should they be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does confer tumah in karachath and gabachath! — No, if all of the other appearances are similar to se'eth to become tamei through white hair, it is because white hair confers tumah in shechin (boils) and michvah (burns). Should they then be similar to se'eth to become tamei through michyah, which does not confer tumah in shechin and michvah! It must, therefore, be written "a plague-spot of leprosy" (to tell us that they do become tamei through michyah. And just as a se'eth is an um (a generator of leprosy), so is a bahereth an um. And whence do we derive the same for the other appearances? From the same a fortiori argument (as above) and from the same answer, viz. (It is derived) from "a plague-spot of leprosy."

2) "if it be": from the pronouncement on (see Section 1:2). "in a man": to include the plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei (i.e., even though if all of the man turned white he is tahor (viz. Vayikra 13:13), still, if there is a michyah in the plague-spot, he is tamei because of the michyah.) Now (why is a verse needed to tell me this?) does it not follow a fortiori? viz.: If a michyah causes tumah in a small bahereth (the size of a garis), how much more so does it cause tumah in a large bahereth (which covers his entire body! — No, this may be true of a small bahereth, which is a sign of tumah. Would you then say the same for a large bahereth, which is not a sign of tumah! Since it is not a sign of tumah, (we would say that) a michyah should not cause tumah in it. It must, therefore, be written "in a man," to include a plague-spot appearing in all of the man — that the michyah makes him tamei.

3) If they called the Cohein to see one plague-spot, and there erupted in it another plague-spot (before he quarantined or confirmed the first), whence is it derived that he examines it? From "and the Cohein shall see, and, behold (connoting something novel) a se'eth." "and it has turned the hair white": (only if) it has turned the hair white), and not a neighboring spot. How so? If one had a bahereth the size of a garis with white hair in it, and the bahereth disappeared and left the white hair in its place, and the bahereth returned —

4) this is "deposited hair," which Akavya b. Mehalalel rules tamei and the sages, tahor. R. Akiva said: I concede that in this instance he is tahor. What is "deposited hair" (which confers tumah, as per Akavya)? If one had a bahereth with two hairs in it, and a half-garis disappeared and left white hair in the place of the bahereth, and then it returned. They said to him: Just as they (the sages) nullified the words of Akavya, so, your words do not stand.

5) "and it has turned (the hair white"): All of it (the plague-spot) has turned (the hair white), and not part of it. How so? A bahereth of half a garis and in it two (white) hairs (generated by this bahereth.) (Even if) another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it another (white) hair, the plague-spot is to be quarantined (and not confirmed, the hairs not combining (for confirmation). For the first hairs are considered non-existent, only part of a plague-spot having generated them).

6) "and it has turned (the hair white"): (The connotation is that) all of it has turned all of it (white), and not that all of it has turned part of it (white). How so? A bahereth of half a garis, and in it (was generated) one (white) hair. If another half-garis bahereth erupted, and in it (was generated) another white hair, it is to be quarantined. A bahereth of half a garis, and nothing in it, and there erupted another half-garis bahereth, and two hairs (were generated), it is to be confirmed, for the (whole) bahereth turned all of it (white).

7) "and the michyah of living flesh (within the se'eth"): I might think that any amount (of living flesh sufficed); it is, therefore, written: "white hair and michyah": Just as "white hair" connotes space for (at least) two hairs, so, michyah connotes that space.

8) I might think that it were not (tamei) unless both white hair and michyah obtained; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 13:11) "It (the michyah) is old leprosy." It (the michyah itself) is tamei, and it requires no further adjunct.

9) If so, why are (both) "white hair and michyah" written (and not "or michyah")? To teach that the michyah is not tamei unless it has space for both.

10) I might then think that (the meaning was space for) white hair on one side and for michyah on the other side (i.e., space for four hairs); it is, therefore, written "within the se'eth" — surrounded by the se'eth.

11) How so? Space for two hairs on its (the michyah's) right and two hairs on its left, and thus above and below — squared; in all, (space for) thirty-six hairs — the body of the bahereth (with the michyah in its midst) thus being found to be (the size of) a Cilician garis squared. "living flesh": and not a boil; "living flesh": and not white scurf. "within the se'eth": and not within a boil; "within the se'eth: and not within white scurf.