Comentario sobre Negaim 4:12

יש בשער. ששער לבן מטמא בתחילה – when it is brought to the Kohen [for inspection] and there is in the plague a white hair, it is impure. What is not the case regarding spreading of a leprous spot which does not defile other than at the end of a week.

Introduction The first three mishnayot of this chapter compare the laws that apply to different signs of negaim and it demonstrates how each nega has different rules and regulations. Our mishnah begins by covering the sign of the white hair with the sign of the spreading of the nega.

ומטמא בכל מראה לובן (and defiles in any appearance of the white color [of leprosy] – even below/less from four appearances, as it is written (Leviticus 13:3): "ומראה הנגע עמוק"/“and the affection appears to be deeper than [the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection],” the appearance of the plague is deeper, but the appearance of white hair does not appear to be deep. Which is not the case with spreading of the plague/פסיון, for the spreading does not defile below/less than four appearances, for in those appearances that the starting point of leprosy/the substance defiles, the spreading of a leprous spot defiles.

There are [laws] that apply to the white hair that do not apply to the spreading, while others apply to the spreading and do not apply to the white hair. This sets up the comparison that shall be fleshed out (pun intended) below.

ואין בו סימן טהרה (no token of cleanness applies to it) – whereas with the spreading of a leprous spot there is a token of cleanness that applies to it, for if it spread all over, it is pure.

That white hair causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever the state of its whiteness, and it is never a sign of cleanness. As we learned in 3:3, a white hair is a sign of a nega when it is first examined by the priest, even before any period of isolation. In contrast, spreading can be a sign only after the afflicted person has been isolated for a week. A white hair is a sign of uncleanness even if its white is duller than any of the shades listed in mishnah 1:1. However, for the spreading to be a sign of uncleanness it must be one of these shades. Even if the whole body became full of white hairs, it is not a sign that the person is clean. In contrast, if the nega spreads to the whole body, the person is deemed clean (see Leviticus 13:13).

מטמא בכל שהוא – but the white hair does not defile with less than two hairs, for the least of hair is two.

There are laws that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness for all negaim and even when it is outside the nega, and these laws do not apply to the white hair. Even the smallest spread of the nega will cause him to be unclean. In contrast, there must be two at least white hairs for them to be unclean. The spreading applies to all negaim, whereas the white hair only applies to skin, boils and burns. The spreading is a sign of impurity when it extends beyond the nega, whereas white hairs are a sign of impurity only within the nega.

חוץ מן הנגע – that when it spread outside of the plague, it is impure But regarding the white hair we require that it be in the plague, as it is written (Leviticus 13:3): "ושער בנגע הפך לבן"/“if hair in the affected patch turned white.”

בכל מראה – that is like the appearance of the flesh whether abnormally dark-complexioned whether white or whether red.

Introduction Today's mishnah compares the rules regarding the sign of "quick flesh" with the sign of spreading.

מטמא בכל שהוא – but with quick flesh it requires like a lentil.

There are [laws] that apply to the quick flesh that do not apply to the spreading, while other restrictions apply to the spreading and do not apply to the quick flesh. An introductory statement.

חוץ מן הנגע מה שאין כן במחיה – for the quick flesh needs to be within the plague.

That quick flesh causes uncleanness at the beginning, it causes uncleanness whatever its color, and it is never a sign of cleanness. Quick flesh can be an initial sign of a nega. The color can be any color, even black. And even if the entire body is covered with quick flesh, he is still impure, whereas if the spreading covers the whole body, he is pure (see yesterday's mishnah).

There are [laws] that apply to the spreading, for the spreading causes uncleanness however small its extent, it causes uncleanness in all forms of negaim and also where it is outside the leprosy sign, and these laws do not apply to the quick flesh. For quick flesh to be a sign of impurity it must be at least the size of a lentil, whereas the spreading can be even to the smallest extent. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity only in skin negaim and those found on the bald head or forehead. Finally, quick flesh is a sign only if it appears in the nega. Appearance of quick flesh elsewhere on the body is not a sign of a nega.

ובמכונס (are close together) – that they two hairs are in one place in the plague.

Introduction After comparing white hair and quick flesh to spreading, the Mishnah now compares them to each other.

במפורד – this one on the east side of the plague and that one on the west side.

There are [laws] that apply to white hair that do not apply to quick flesh, while others apply to quick flesh and not to white hair. The introductory statement.

מבוצר (encompassed) – two hairs in the middle of the plague, like a fortress that is in the middle of the city.

White hair causes uncleanness in a boil and in a burn, whether growing together or dispersed, and whether encompassed or unencompassed. White hair is a sign of a nega when it is in a burn or boil (see 3:4). The two requisite white hairs can be on opposite sides of the nega, whereas the quick flesh must all be in the same spot. The white hairs can either be surrounded by the nega, or not. In either case they are a sign of impurity. In contrast, the quick flesh must be surrounded by the nega for it to be a sign of impurity.

אינו מבוצר – like a thread that comes out from the plague, and there is in its midst two hairs, what is not the case with the burning spot that we require [both] encompassed and close together.

There are [laws] that apply to quick flesh, for quick flesh causes uncleanness in scalp baldness and in forehead baldness, whether it was turned or was not turned, it prevents the cleanness of one who is turned all white, and causes uncleanness whatever its color, and these do not apply to white hair. Quick flesh is a sign of uncleanness in scalp or forehead baldness (see 3:6) whereas white hairs are not (he wouldn't really be bald if there were white hairs there, would he?). "Turned" and "not turned" refer to the nega and quick flesh appearing in a certain order. Quick flesh is a sign of impurity whether the nega pre-existed the quick flesh, meaning part of the nega turned into quick flesh, or the quick flesh existed before the nega, meaning the nega arose near the quick flesh. In contrast, the nega must appear before the white hairs for them to be a sign of impurity. If a person turns all white and he is purified but then some quick flesh appears, he is impure (see Leviticus 13:14). But if he turns all white and is purified and then some white hairs appear, he is still pure. Quick flesh can be any color, whereas the white hairs must be white (duh!).

הפוכה ושלא הפוכה (whether it was changed or not changed) – whether the bright white spot on the skin preceded the quick flesh , or whether the quick flesh preceded the bright white spot on the skin/בהרת. What is not the case concerning the white hair, for if it (i.e., the white hair) preceded the bright white spot on the skin, he is pure.

מעכבת את ההופך כולו לבן (hinders [uncleanness] in him who has turned entirely white) – if he was declared a definite leper with quick flesh, and the leprosy blossomed throughout him except for the place of the quick flesh, he is still impure. But if it blossomed throughout even though all of his hair is filled with white hair, he is pure, for the white hair does not hinder (i.e., is not indispensable).

עיקרן משחיר וראשן מלבין טהור – as Scripture states (Leviticus 13:3): “if hair in the affected patch has turned white”/"ושער בנגע הפך לבן", the root hat is adjacent to/near the plague has turned white. -

Introduction Our mishnah deals with various rules concerning the two white hairs that appear in a nega.

כדי לקרוץ בזוג (sufficient to cut with scissors) – sufficient that he should take with the mouth of a pair of scissors. And the Halakha the measure of white hair, its length is not less than that he should take with the mouth of a scissors, but the whiteness that is in it is any amount at all.

If the two hairs were black at the root and white at the tip he is clean. If they were white at the root and black at the tip he is unclean. Only white hairs are a sign of impurity; black hairs are not. The color of the hair is determined by the color at the root. Thus if the tips are white, he is clean but if the roots are white he is not.

ונראית כשתים טהור – that thee are hairs that are divided at their top into two but at their root they are not other than one.

How much whiteness must there be? Rabbi Meir says: any amount. Rabbi Shimon says: enough to be cut with a pair of scissors. How much of the tips must be white for them to be a sign of uncleanness? Rabbi Meir says that even the smallest amount is a sign of uncleanness, whereas Rabbi Shimon says that there must be enough for it to be cut by a pair of scissors.

בהרת ובה שער לבן ושער שחור טמא – a bright white spot on the skin that is like the size of a pressed [Cilician] bean and it has two white hairs, but the rest is filled with black hairs, it is impure. But we don’t say that the place of the black hairs limits the bright white spot on the skin from being like a split [Cilician] bean.

If it was single at the root but split at the tip, and it looks like two hairs, he is clean. One hair that is split still counts as one, even if it looks like there are two.

If a bright spot had [two] white hairs or black hair he is unclean, for we are not concerned that the place of the black hair lessened the space of the bright spot, since the former is of no consequence. If there is a bright spot (a type of nega, called a baheret) and it is the minimum size of a barleycorn and there are many white hairs there, we do not consider them as reducing the size of the bright spot to less than the barleycorn. Since there are white hairs, he is impure. The same is true for black hairs inside a bright spot. These black hairs mean that he is to be isolated. We do not consider them as reducing the size of the nega such that he need not even be isolated. Another interpretation of this line is that if black hairs are mixed in with the white hairs in the nega (the bright spot), we don't consider the black hairs as reducing the overall size of the nega, for the black hairs are of no consequence.

זוקקה לשער לבן ולפסיון (if [the streak/thread] subjects it [the bright spot] to [restrictions in respect to] white hair and spreading) – if there is in that thread a white hair, he is declared to be a definitive leper. Or if it spread near the thread at the end of a week, he is impure. But if there isn’t in the width of the thread two hairs but it has white hair he does not defile, for it is not considered from the plague. But if it spread near the thread and there isn’t in its width two hairs, it is considered like spreading far from the plague, and it requires like a split [Cilician] bean.

If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and a string extended from it, if it was two hairs in breadth, it is subject to the restrictions in respect of white hair and spreading, but not to that in respect of its quick flesh. The mishnah discusses a nega (a bright spot or baheret in Hebrew) from which a line of some sort extends. If this line is thick enough, then the line is considered part of the nega in that if a white hair comes out of the line or if the line spreads, it is a sign of impurity. However, if quick flesh appears in the line it is not a sign of impurity unless the quick flesh itself is the size of a split bean.

אבל לא למחיה – that even if here is in the width of the thread of two hairs, the quick flesh that is on it does not defile. For the quick flesh needs that will be encompassed in the middle of the plague like a fortress which is in the middle of the city.

If there were two bright spots and a streak extended from one to the other, if it was two hairs in breadth, it combines them; but if not, it does not combine them. A line (a streak) between two negaim serves to join them if it is wide enough. In such a case they are treated as one nega, and if a white hair or spreading appears in one, both are judged to be impure.

מצרפן – and they are judged as one plague. But if one of them spread a little bit or a white hair was forthcoming on one of them, he is declared to be a definitive leper on both of them.

ואם לאו אימנן מצרפן – and they are judged as two plagues, but if one of them spread but the other one did not spread, he is declared to be a definitive leper on the one, and is shut up/isolated on the other. And the practical difference is that when he is declared to be pure, he is required to bring two sacrifices.

בהרת כגריס – but not the place of the quick flesh, that is nine lentils of the bright white spot on the skin, and one lentil of quick flesh, ten lentils among them all.

If a bright spot the size of a split bean had within it quick flesh the size of a lentil and there was white hair within the quick flesh: if the quick flesh disappeared the spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon makes it clean, since it was not the bright spot that caused it [the hair] to turn [white]. There is a bright spot which is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, itself large enough to be a sign of impurity, and white hair, one (the quick flesh or white hair) of which is necessary to cause the bright spot to be impure. If one of these two signs disappears, the bright spot is still impure on account of the second sign. Rabbi Shimon disagrees if the quick flesh disappears because it is not the bright spot (the actual nega) that caused the hair to turn white but rather the quick flesh. In other words, the white hair must be caused by the nega and not by the sign that the nega is impure.

גריס – they are nine lentils, and the quick flesh is not less than a lentil. Wherever that we teach בהרת/the bright white spot on the skin (i.e., eventually one of the symptoms of leprosy), the same law applies to the rest of the appearances that are smooth or variegated.

If a bright spot together with the quick flesh in it was of the size of a split bean and there was white hair within the spot: if the quick flesh disappeared the bright spot is unclean on account of the white hair; if the white hair disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that it is clean, since it was not a bright spot the size of a split bean that caused the hair to turn [white]. In this case the bright spot is not large enough to be impure on its own. Rather together with the enclosed quick flesh the entire region adds up to a split bean. There is also white hair. If the quick flesh disappears and the bright spot fills its place it is impure because the bright spot is now the size of a split bean. If the white hair disappears it is also impure because the bright spot is large enough with the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon says that if the quick flesh disappears it is not impure because the hair didn't appear in a bright spot that was itself the size of a split bean.

והלכה המחיה – that the plague comes upon its place.

He agrees that if where the white hair was, was the size of a split bean, that it is impure. Rabbi Shimon agrees that if the bright spot is the size of a split bean and it has in it quick flesh the size of a lentil but the white hair is in the bright spot (and not in the quick flesh) that the nega is impure if the quick flesh disappears. This is because the bright spot itself caused the hair to turn white, whereas in the other cases the white hair was found in the quick flesh. Rabbi Shimon holds that the bright spot must cause the hair to turn white and not something else. He derives this from a close reading of Leviticus 13:4, "and its hair did not turn white" "its" refers to the bright spot and not the quick flesh.

הלך שער לבן – that it fell off or changed to black/dark.

ר' שמעון מטהר – it refers to the quick flesh that disappeared.

שלא הפכתו בהרת – that the white hair preceded the bright white spot on the skin of the place of the quick flesh.

שלא הפכתו בהרת כגריס – that the white hair preceded the bright white spot on the skin like a split Cilician bean, for the place of the quick flesh was missing that of a Cilician bean, and here also, Rabbi Shimon does not dispute other than when the quick flesh disappears. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

בהרת ובה מחיה ופשיון – a bright white spot on the skin (i.e., eventually one of the symptoms of leprosy) like a split Cilician bean and he has been shut in/put in isolation, and at the end of the week, he found in it the quick flesh and spreading and they declared him to be a certified leper.

A bright spot which had quick flesh and a spreading: if the quick flesh disappeared it is unclean on account of the spreading; if the spreading disappeared it is unclean on account of the quick flesh. The mishnah refers to a person who has a bright spot (a nega) and then was isolated. When examined again it had quick flesh and a spreading and the priest pronounced him impure. If one of these signs disappears, he is still impure because of the presence of the second sign.

הלכה המחיה (the quick flesh disappeared – after a week of quarantine)– as for example, that the plague came upon, the bright white spot on the skin is impure because of the spreading.

So also in the case of white hair and a spreading. The same thing is true if one of the signs is a white hair and one is spreading.

הלך הפשיון – as for example, that the bright white spot on the skin/בהרת came in and it returned to the size of a Cilician bean.

If it [the bright spot] disappeared and appeared again at the end of the week, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was. The person was isolated at the beginning of the week because of the appearance of a nega. During the week of isolation, the nega disappeared and then reappeared. We treat this as if the nega had never disappeared. If he is at the end of the first week, the priest will isolate him for another week. If he is at the end of the second week, then he will be pronounced pure.

וכן שער לבן ופשיון – if one of them disappeared, he is impure because of the second.

If it reappeared after it had been pronounced clean, it must be inspected as a new one. If the nega disappeared and he was pronounced pure, and then it reappeared, it is treated as if it was a new nega. He will need two periods of isolation before he can be pronounced pure again.

הלכה וחזרה בסוף השבוע – as for example, that he was shut up/isolated on account of the bright white spot on the skin like the size of a split Cilician bean, and the bright white spot on the skin went away in the middle of the week, but at the end of the week it returned.

If it had been bright white but was now dull white, or if it had been dull white but was now bright white, it is regarded as though it had remained as it was, provided that it does not become less white than the four principal colors. If the nega changes color it is still treated as the same nega as long as it is still one of the four requisite shades mentioned in 1:1.

הרי היא כמות שהיתה – and they shut him up/isolated him a second time.

If it contracted and then spread, or if it spread and then contracted: Rabbi Akiva rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean. There are two situations described here. In the first the nega is large enough to be impure and then it becomes smaller than a barleycorn and then it spreads back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva counts this as "spreading" and therefore declares it impure. The sages say that this does not count as spreading, so he is not impure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he is pure. The second situation is opposite. It spread and then contracted back to its original size. Rabbi Akiva says that this is a new nega and he must go back to a new period of isolation. The rabbis say again that this doesn't count as spreading and he is pure (if he has already been isolated for two weeks).

לאחר הפטור – that the Kohen saw it (i.e., the bright white spot on the skin) at the end of the week and when it disappeared, he released him, if after that it returned, it would appear at the beginning. ( And this return – that is in its first (i.e., original) place, for if it was in in another place, if so this is another bright spot on the skin.

היתה עזה – like snow when he shut him up/isolated him.

ונעשית כהה – at the end of the first week, as for example, like lime or with a membrane, or that it was like a membrane at the time of his being shut up/put in isolation, and it became strong like snow at the end of the first week.

הרי היא כמות שהיתה – and it requires a second isolation, like “it has remained unchanged”/"עמד בעיניו" (Leviticus 13:5).

ובלבד שלא תתמעט מארבע מראות (on condition that it did not diminish [to a shade less] than the four appearances – if it diminished from the four appearances, he (i.e., the Kohen) releases him immediately and he is pure.

כנסה ופשתה (if it contracted and spread) – where he was shut up/placed in isolation with the bright white spot on the skin like a split Cilician bean, and at the end of he week, it contracted, but after that it spread the place in the place of the contraction but not more. Or that it spread at the end of the week, and afterwards contracted the place of the spreading and not more.

ר' עקיבא מטמא – for it certainly spread.

וחכמים מטהרים – that this is not spreading, but it is as it was. But if it refers to the end of the first week, they shut him up/isolate him a second time. But if it refers to the end of the second week, they release him and he is ritually pure.

ופשתה כחצי גריס – to the eastern side.

A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spreads to the extent of half a split bean, while of the original spot there disappeared as much as half a split bean: Rabbi Akiba says: it must be inspected as a new one, But the sages say: it is clean. At the outset, the bright spot (the nega) is the requisite size, the size of a split bean. It then spreads, but the original spot contracts an equal amount. It is almost as if the nega shifted a bit. Rabbi Akiva says that this is considered a new nega. This means that he will have to be isolated, as at the outset. The other sages say that since the nega remained the same size as it was in the beginning, it is treated as if it didn't grow and he is pronounced clean (because it didn't spread), if he is at the end of the second week of isolation. If he is at the end of the first week of isolation, he will be isolated for a second week. We should note that others explain that since there is less than the size of a split bean left of the original nega, it is pure. The part that remains does not join together with the spreading to make it impure.

והלך מן האום כחצי גריס – to the western side.

תיראה בתחלה (it is inspected anew) – for it is considered like another plague, and it is a new plague and he should be shut up/isolated [for it].

וחכמים מאהרין – that it is not considered spreading unless it adds on the measurement of the plaque that it was at the outset, but this now is none other than like a split Cilician bean, it is considered like the first that remained unchanged and is pure.

ופשתה כחצי גריס ועוד וכו'. רבי עקיבא מטמא – because the “and more”/"ועוד" that remains there from the spreading. And we are speaking about that it spread after the clearance/release.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with cases that are similar to that found in yesterday's mishnah a bright spot both spread (a sign of impurity) and contracted during the same period of isolation. The question is: does this count as spreading?

וחכמים מטהרין – for since it went one-half of a split Cilician bean from the starting point of leprosy, it is not from a new plague but rather one-half of a split Cilician bean and more.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of half a split bean and a little more, while as much as half the size of a split bean disappeared from the original spot: Rabbi Akiva says that it is unclean, But the sages say that it is clean. In this case the bright spot spread more than the amount that disappeared. In other words, it had a net gain in size. Rabbi Akiva says that this counts as spreading. The rabbis say that since that since it did not spread sufficiently, the spreading is not enough to count it as pure. If he is at the end of the second week of isolation, he will be pronounced pure.

ופשתה כגריס ועוד – after the release [from uncleanness], and afterwards, the starting point of leprosy disappeared and there didn’t remain anything other than the new split Cilician bean and [a bit] more.

A bright spot the size of a split bean that spread to the extent of a split bean and a little more, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says that is it unclean, But the sages say: it should be inspected as a new one. In this case, the original spot disappeared altogether. The spreading is large enough to be itself a nega. Rabbi Akiva is consistent in his opinion this counts as spreading and not as a new nega. Therefore, he is impure. The other sages say that since the old nega has completely disappeared, this counts as a new nega and it must be inspected as such. He will begin a new period of isolation.

רבי עקיבא מטמא – for it spread for him from the first measurement. But the Rabbis hold, since it went on [further], the first is all of it, but this plague that is referred to is new, that it should be inspected anew and he should be shut up/isolated.

בהרת כגריס ופשתה כגריס – we are speaking that it spread after the clearance/release [from impurity].

A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the extent of a split bean, and in the spreading there appeared quick flesh or white hair, while the original spot disappeared: Rabbi Akiva says: it is unclean. But the sages say: it must be inspected as a new one. This is the last of the debates between Rabbi Akiva and the sages on this subject. The nega starts out the size of a split bean and then spreads again the size of a split bean. In the spreading there appears quick flesh or white hair. Had these appeared in the original nega, they would be a sign of impurity. However, the original spot also disappears. Rabbi Akiva is again consistent and holds that we consider this spreading to be part of the original nega, and therefore he says that he is impure. The other sages say that since the original nega is gone, he must begin the process over again. We should note that in this case, since there is a white hair or quick flesh in the nega, he will immediately be pronounced impure by the priest.

ר' עקיבא מטמא – for there is here a plague and the sign of defilement with it.

A bright spot the size of half a split bean with nothing in it, and then there appeared a bright spot the size of half a split bean and with one hair, this is to be isolated. The original bright spot is smaller than a split bean and does not have a white hair in it. Then a second bright spot appears with a white hair. We now have one full bright spot the size of a split bean, but since there is only one hair, the person is isolated and not deemed impure.

תיראה בתחלה – for even though that it should be examined anew, the Kohen should also declare it impure immediately. And the quick flesh and white hair defile at the beginning, nevertheless, the practical difference is that according to the Rabbis, he needs to bring a sacrifice for each and every one, but according to Rabbi Akiba it is considered like the first plague, and when it (i.e., the plague) falls away, he brings one sacrifice. And in all of these where Rabbi Akiba and the Sages disagree in our Mishnah, the Halakha is according to the Sages.

A bright spot the size of half a split bean with one hair and then there appeared another spot of the size of a half a split bean with one hair, this is to be isolated. In order for the white hair to be a sign of impurity, it must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean. Although there are two white hairs in this bright spot, each came out of a bright spot less than the size of a split bean. Therefore, the two white hairs don't count as signs of impurity.

ואין בה כלום – it has no white hair.

A bright spot the size of half a split bean with two hairs and another spot of the size of half a split bean appeared with one hair, this is to be isolated. In this case, there are two white hairs in one bright spot, but it is only the size of half a split bean. As we saw before, for the white hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must come out of a bright spot the size of a split bean.

ובה שערה אחת ונולדה בהרת וכו' הרי זו להסגיר – and even though the bright white spot in the flesh like a Cilician bean came first to the last hair, since it didn’t come before the first [hair], it has no effect, for we require that the bright white spot in the flesh precedes like a split Ciliican bean to the two hairs.

בהרת כחצי גריס ובה שתי שערות וכו' הרי זו להסגיר – and even though the one-half Cilician bean preceded the two hairs, it has no effect until the full split Cilician bean precedes the two hairs.

ונולד בהרת כחצי גריס ובה שתי שערות כו' הרי זו להחלט – wherever it teaches [in the Mishnah]: "ובה שתי שערות"/ “and in it are two hairs” or "ובה שערה אחת" / “and in it is one hair”, it is not that the hairs and ""the bright white spot in the flesh/בהרת that come together, but rather, that the bright white spot in the flesh came first and afterwards came the hairs.

A bright spot the size of a split bean and there was nothing else, and then there appeared a bright spot of the size of half a split bean having two hairs, this one is declared unclean. Originally there was a nega (the bright spot) the size of half a split bean without any white hairs. Then another bright spot appeared next to it, but it too was not large enough itself to be a nega. However, it did have two hairs. When we combine the two bright spots we now have a nega the size of a split bean, which is enough to count as a nega. And because half of the nega came before the white hairs, this is considered a case of the nega preceding the white hairs. Therefore he is declared impure.

ואם שער לבן קדמה לבהרת טהור – as it is written (Leviticus 13:10): "[וראה הכהן והנה שאת-לבנה בעור] והיא הפכה שער לבן [ומחית בשר חי בשאת]."/ “[If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling] which has turned some hair white, [with a patch of un-discolored flesh in the swelling],” it is the bright white spot in the flesh which caused the hair to turn to a white color.

Because they said: if the bright spot preceded the white hair he is unclean; if the white hair preceded the bright spot he is clean; and if it is doubtful he is unclean. This is the general rule the nega must precede the white hairs for him to be unclean. However, if it is doubtful which came first, he is considered unclean.

ספק טמא – there is doubt if the white hair preceded the bright white spot in the flesh/בהרת or that the bright white spot in the flesh preceded the white hair, it is impure.

Rabbi Joshua regards this as unsolvable. Rabbi Joshua wasn't so certain what to do in the above case. He basically deemed it unsolvable because he wasn't sure if this was a case of the nega coming first since only half of it existed before the white hairs. According to most commentators, he also disagreed with the ruling that "if it is doubtful he is unclean" for he reasoned that in cases of doubt we should be lenient. I thought it might be interesting to bring a Talmudic story related to this mishnah. It appears in Bava Metzia 86a: There was a dispute in the heavenly college: if the bright spot comes before the white hairs, he is impure. And if the white hairs come before the bright spot, he is pure. If it is doubtful [what is the law]? And it was decided that Rabbah bar Nahmani should decide the case, for Rabbah bar Nahmani used to say that he was the only one who knew the law of Negaim and the only one who knew the law of Ohalot. They sent a messenger for him and the angel of death could not touch him, for he did not stop studying for one moment. In the meantime a wind blew and made noise with the trees of the forest, and Rabbah thought that a legion of soldiers was after him and he said: It is better for me to die through the angel of death than to be taken by the Government. When he was dying, he said "he is pure, he is pure." Then a heavenly voice came forth, saying: Happy are you, Rabbah bar Nahmani, for your body is pure, and your soul left you body while you were saying "pure." There are many interesting things about this story, but one of the tidbits I really find interesting is that only Rabbah bar Nahmani knew the laws of Ohalot and Negaim well enough to make decisions on these matters. It is difficult material so hard even the rabbis themselves had trouble with it!

ורבי יהושע קהה – we have the reading. From the language of (Jeremiah 31:29): “[In those days, they shall no longer say, ‘Parents have eaten sour grapes] and children’s teeth are blunted.”/"ושני בנים תקהינה". Meaning to say, that his teeth were blunted from stating the words that it is doubtfully impure, for he held that it is doubtfully pure. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehoshua.