Comentario sobre Negaim 5:6

כל ספק נגעים חוץ מזה – [this relates to Chapter 4, Mishnah 11 towards the end of the Mishnah] – that the doubt regarding the bright white spot in the flesh preceded [or] the doubt about whether the white hair preceded.

Any doubtful nega is regarded as clean, except this case and one other. In general, in a doubtful case concerning a nega, meaning it is unclear whether it is or is not a nega, the affected person is considered clean. However, there are two exceptions. The first is the case we saw in yesterday's mishnah (4:11) and the second case is in this mishnah.

הרי היא כסלע – it became as wide and as large as a Sela.

Which is that? If he had a bright spot of the size of a split bean and he was isolated, and by the end of the week it was as big as a sela, and it is doubtful whether it is the original one or whether another came in its place, he must be regarded as unclean. Originally, the nega was the size of a split bean. This is large enough to cause him to be isolated for a week to see if it spreads or if white hairs appear. By the end of the first week, the nega is the size of a sela, a coin which is much larger than a split bean. It is unclear whether this is the original nega and it just spread or if it is a new nega. If it is a new nega, he would start a new period of isolation. However, in this case the halakhah is strict and we consider the original nega to have spread, causing him to be impure.

ספק היא היא – and it is worthy/fit [for the person] to be declared a certified leper, for it spread.

ספק שאחרת באה תחתיה – that the first went away/disappeared and he is fit to be shut up/isolated, for spreading does not defile at the outset.

ומחליטו – and he declares him to be a certified leper.

הלך שער לבן – that he had been certified as a leper for its sake [of the white hair].

Introduction In all of the cases in this mishnah, there were signs of impurity in the nega and the person was declared impure. And then those signs disappeared and new signs arose. The question is: does this count as a new nega or does he continue in his earlier state of impurity?

וחזר שער לבן – other in its place.

If one had been certified unclean on account of white hair, and the white hair disappeared and other white hair appeared, And so also in the case of quick flesh or a spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after he had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. In the first example, the sign of impurity was the white hairs. After having been declared impure, the original white hairs disappeared and either new white hairs came in their place, or quick flesh or the spreading of the original nega, both of which are also signs of impurity. No matter when this "replacement" occurred, he continues in his earlier state of impurity. In other words, if he was deemed impure immediately, without any weeks of isolation, or if he was deemed impure after a week or two weeks of isolation, or even if he was declared pure after the isolation, if the original signs disappear and new signs, he retains (or regains) his original impurity.

וכן במחיה וכן בפשיון – or that the white hair did not return, but rather that quick flesh resulted which is also a sign of defilement, or that the plague spread.

If he had been certified unclean on account of quick flesh, and the quick flesh disappeared and other quick flesh appeared, And so also in the case of white hair and spreading, Whether this occurred in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is regarded as being in the same position as before. This section is the same as section one, except the original sign is quick flesh and not white hairs.

בתחילה בסוף שבוע ראשון – that is to say, whether the declaration of being a certified leper had been at the outset when he was brought to the Kohen, whether at the end of the first week, whether at the end of the second week, whether after the clearance/release, as for example, that it remained unchanged/עמד בעיניו for two weeks and he released him, and after the release, the white hair came and he (i.e., the Kohen) declared him to be a certified leper, in all of these ways if the white hair disappeared and then the white hair returned, or the quick flesh or the spreading. הרי היא כמות שהיתה – that is to say, the defilement remained like it was, for since he has a sign of defilement, even though this is not the same sign that he had at the time of the declaration as a certified leper.

If he had been certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and another spreading appeared, And so also in the case of white hair, Whether this occurred at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after the man had been released from uncleanness, he is in the same position as before. Here the original sign is the spreading. "Spreading" cannot be a sign of impurity at the outset, therefore this section does not read "in the beginning."

וחזר הפשיון וכן בשער לבן – but that it (i.e., the Mishnah) doesn’t teach, "וכן המחיה"/and similarly the quick flesh, because when the spreading disappeared and the quick flesh came, sometimes he would be pure, as for example, that the quick flesh diminished the plague from being the size of a split Cilician bean.

שער פקודה (hair of a leprous spot which remains after the inflammation has partly receded) – it is language of פקדון/deposit (see Leviticus 5:21 and 5:23), that the bright white spot in the flesh/בהרת deposited the hair in the skin of the flesh and left it/disappeared.

Deposited hair: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it is unclean. But the sages hold it to be clean. This is an introductory section. A fuller version appears in section two.

וחכמים מטהרים – and their reasoning, as it is written (Leviticus 13:10): “[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].”/"והיא הפכה [שער לבן ומחית בשר חי בשאת]., that it has turned [some hair white], but it did not turn its neighboring [hair white].

What is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot with white hair in it, and the bright spot disappeared leaving the white hair in position and then it reappeared: Akaviah ben Mahalalel holds it to be unclean, But the sages hold it to be clean. According to Akaviah ben Mahalel, since the bright spot left white hair behind when it disappeared, we treat it as if the bright spot had stayed there the whole time. In other words, the white hair is a sign that the nega really never disappeared and therefore he remains impure. The word "deposited" means that the nega "left" the white hairs as a "deposit" to hold its place till it returned. The other sages say that it is a new bright spot. Therefore, this is a case where the white hairs came before the bright spot, which means that the nega is pure, as we learned in 4:11.

אף דבריך אין מקויימין – for this also is pure. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

Rabbi Akiva said: in this case I agree that he is clean; But what is "deposited hair"? If one had a bright spot of the size of a split bean with two hairs in it, and a part the size of a half a split bean disappeared leaving the white hair in the place of the white spot and then it reappeared. They said to him: just as they rejected the ruling of Akaviah so is there no validity in your ruling. Rabbi Akiva agrees with the sages that in such a case, the person is clean. However, he has a different definition altogether of what "deposited hair" is, and in this case he agrees with Akaviah ben Mahalel. The difference is that in this case, the bright spot didn't completely disappear, it only partly disappeared. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva agrees that this is not a case of the white hairs coming before the nega, and he is impure. The other sages reject Rabbi Akiva because he holds like Akaviah ben Mahalel and the latter is a rejected sage. For more information see Eduyot 5:6. It is interesting that this attack seems to be more "ad hominem" then logically based. The rabbis reject Rabbi Akiva not because they don't agree with him, but because he agrees with the wrong person.

בין אישר אחד – even though that which ever you turn, he has one bright white spot in the flesh that has spread, that which at its outset was like a split Cilician bean and now is like a Sela, he is fit to be declared a certified leper, nevertheless, since he (i.e., the Kohen) doesn’t know on which plague is declaring him to be a certified leper, he (i.e., the person) is pure, from the decree of the Scriptural verse, as it is written (Leviticus 13:22): “If it should spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him impure; [it is an affection],” the definitive plague he declares impure, but he doesn’t declare impure but he doesn’t defile the plague where he has doubt.

Any doubt in negaim in the beginning is regarded as clean before uncleanness has been established, but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean. In the first mishnah of this chapter we learned that if there is a doubt concerning a nega, it is considered pure. Today's and tomorrow's mishnah clarify that this is only before any impurity has been established. Once some impurity has been established, doubtful cases are impure.

בין בשני אנשים – even though that one of them requires being shut up/isolated for seven days a second time at the end of the first week, and the other is a certified leper, but sine he doesn’t know which to shut up and which to declare a certified leper, both of them are pure from the decree from the Scriptural verse.

How is this so? If two men came to a priest one having a bright spot the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela, and at the end of the week each had one the size of a sela, and it is not known on which of them the spreading had occurred, Whether this occurred with one man or with two men, each is clean. The mishnah first explains cases where the doubt comes before the purity is established and therefore he is pure. Two men come to a priest (yes, this does sound like the beginning of a joke) and both have a bright spot. One has a nega the size of a split bean and another has a nega that is larger, the size of a sela. Both are isolated for a week, and at the end of the week one person's nega has spread to be the size of a sela, and the other's has not spread. The problem is that the priest can't remember who had one the size of a sela and whose was the size of a split bean, meaning he doesn't know which spread and which did not. Since no impurity has yet been established, both are considered pure. The rabbis add that this is true even if both negaim are on one man. Although we know that one nega spread, we don't know which, and therefore he cannot be deemed impure.

ר' עקיבא אומר כו' – but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiba.

Rabbi Akiva said: if one man is involved he is unclean, but if two men are involved each is clean. Rabbi Akiva disagrees with this latter statement. If both negaim are on one person, then he is unclean because we can be certain that one of his negaim spread.

שניהם טמאים – since it spread in both of them.

Introduction Today's mishnah clarifies when cases of doubt are deemed unclean.

אף על פי שחזרו להיות כסלע – for now one of them is ritually pure, but since they were obliged to regard themselves/obligate themselves for defilement, both of them are impure, as it is written (Leviticus 13:23): “[But if the discoloration remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the inflammation] the priest shall declare him pure”/"וטהרו הכהן" - that which is definitive, he (i.e., the Kohen) declares pure, but he does not declare pure the doubtful (see also Sifra on his verse in Leviticus).

"But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean." This is a quote from mishnah four.

עד שיחזרו להיות גריס – that now, certainly both of them are ritually pure, that the spreading that on whose account they were declared to be certified lepers has disappeared from both of them.

How so? If two men came to a priest, one having a bright spot of the size of a split bean and the other having one of the size of a sela and at the end of the week each was of the size of a sela and a little more, both are unclean; The difference between this mishnah and yesterday's mishnah is that in this case, both negaim spread. One began at the size of a split bean and spread to be a bit larger than a sela, and one started as a sela and spread just a little bit. Nevertheless, since both spread both are impure.

And even though both returned to be the size of a sela both are unclean, and remain unclean until they return to the size of a split split bean. They remain impure even if both return to be the size of a sela. This is the "doubt." One of these has returned to its original size, and since the "spreading" is gone, that one should be pure. But since they were already pronounced unclean, they both remain impure until the spreading has certainly disappeared from both.

They is what they meant when they said, "but after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean." A summary of what was taught above.