Commento su Bega'im 1:9

מראות נגעים (the appearance of plagues – i.e., leprosy) – are written explicitly in Scripture (Leviticus 13:2: “When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling/שאת, a rash/ספחת, or a discoloration/בהרת, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body,”), a swelling/שאת and a discoloration/בהרת (referred to by Jastrow dictionary as a bright white spot on the skin

Introduction Our mishnah begins to discuss the signs of "negaim" that appear on the skin, meaning what counts as a "nega" and what does not. These are all various shades of white. The two mains signs are called "baheret" and "se'et," both terms found in Leviticus 13:2.

שהן ארבעה – you must include two others that are not written in Scripture, and they are subcategories/תולדה (i.e., a secondary category derived from a primary category. It is not a primary category but is derived from that source, either as a legal inference or as a factual derivative) and they are a subcategory of שאת/swelling and a subcategory of בהרת/discoloration/bright white spot on the skin. And we include them from ספחת/a rash, for ספחת/rash is not the name of a plague but a secondary expression. And similarly, it (i.e., Scripture) states (I Samuel 2:36): [And all the survivors of your house shall come and bow low to him for the sake of a money fee and a loaf of bread and say,] ‘Please assign me to one of the priestly duties, [that I may have a morsel of bread to eat’].” And Scripture placed ספחת/a rash between שאת/swelling and בהרת/bright white spot on the skin to inform you that there is a subcategory to שאת/swelling and a subcategory to בהרת/bright white spot on the skin.

The signs of negaim are two which, in fact, are four. One might be familiar with this literary style for it is the same style used to open tractates Shabbat and Bava Kamma. Here it means that there are two types of negaim mentioned in the Torah baheret and se'et. Both of these have arch-categories and derived categories. The rabbis say that the "derived categories" are the "sapachat" referred to in Leviticus 13:2. "Sapach" can mean "appended to" these signs are "appended to the main signs.

בהרת עזה כשלג (an intensely bright spot – sparkling – like snow) – the most white. As it is written (Leviticus 13:4): “But if it is a white discoloration [on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white],” it is white and there is nothing of a higher level of white than it. (For the derivative to this, כסיד ההיכל/like the limestone in the Temple – see Tractate Middot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 4 – which were whitened every year before Passover.)

The bright spot ( is bright white like snow; secondary to it is the sign as white as the lime of the Temple. Baheret is bright white, like snow. The notion that these plagues were white like snow comes from Exodus 4:6, where Moses is afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Similarly, Miriam (Numbers 12:10) and Gehazi (II Kings 5:27) are afflicted with leprosy that is white as snow. Secondary to it is an affliction that is as white as the lime plaster found on the foundations of the Temple (see Middot 3:4).

שאת כקרום ביצה (the swelling is like the color of the membrane surrounding the egg) – for this Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah] holds that שאת/swelling is not other than the language of something of height. And similarly, it (i.e., Scripture) states (Isaiah 2:14): “And all the lofty hills.” For you don’t have something as dim/faint in its whiteness (as opposed to the strong, intensely bright spot of the בהרת/discoloration which is sparkling like now) in all four appearances of plagues like the membrane surrounding an egg, therefore, it is loftier than all of them, like the appearance of a shadow above from the sun.

The rising (se' is as white of the skin of an egg; secondary to it is the like white wool, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the rising (se' is white wool and secondary to it is like the white of the skin of an egg. According to Rabbi Meir, se'et is like the white of the peel of an egg, and secondary to it is bleached wool. The Talmud explains that this is the white of the wool of a newborn lamb. The other sages reverse which is the main type of nega and which is secondary.

שניה לה כצמר לבן – The Rabbis hold, there are two strong appearances which are snow and white wool, these are for the two principal/direct [forms of plagues], בהרת/discoloration/bright white spot on the skin and שאת/rash, and two appearances [of plagues] that are fainter from them are the limestone in the Temple and the color of the membrane of the egg, and they are derivatives/subcategories . Give the large derivative (or subcategory) to the large one, that is, the limestone of the Temple to the בהרת/discoloration which is a large primary [appearance of a plague], and the small derivative/subcategory to the small one, that is the membrane of the egg to the שאת/swelling which is smaller than the בהרת/discoloration.

And the practical difference in the dispute of the Rabbis and the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah, Rabbi Meir] is in regard to fusion (i.e., the state of being considered as one coherent mass or as one act), for half of a Cilician bean (seen as the standard for eruptions) from a primary category and half of a Cilician bean from its derivative/subcategory fuse together/combine. And similarly, the two primary categories שאת/a swelling and בהרת/discoloration combine, for we expound upon (Leviticus 13:2): “And it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body”/והיה בעור-בשרו לנגע teaching that they combine with one another, as it is written (Leviticus 13:2): "והיה"/and it – and it is not written: "והיו"/and they - make all of the plagues one. But the two derivatives/subcategories do not combine/fuse, for the derivative/subcategory of בהרת/discoloration/bright white spot on the skin does not combine with the derivative/subcategory of שאת/a swelling, and [the word] "והיה"/and [the word] "והיה"/and it – does not refer other than to שאת/a swelling and בהרת/a discoloration/bright white spot on the skinthat are written explicitly, but not to the derivatives [or subcategories] that come from the extension of scope/widening amplification [of Rabbinic exegesis]. And now, according to the first Tanna/teacher [of the Mishnah], snow and the membrane of an egg combine/fuse, snow and white wool do not fuse/combine. But to the Rabbis, snow and white wool combine/fuse, snow and the membrane [of an egg] do not combine/fuse. And he Halakha is according to the Sages.

צמר לבן – pure wool of sheep one day old after it was washed and cleansed.

הפתוך שבשלג (the variegation of the snow-white leprosy) – that is mixed in the white color and red substance that is in the בהרת/discoloration/bright white spot on the skin that it appears as an intensely bright spot sparkling like snow. כיין המזוג בשלג (like the red wine mixed with the snow – before the latter is dissolved) – for its whiteness is greater and its redness is less.

Introduction Leviticus 19:12-13 states: 18 When an inflammation appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white discoloration streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest. Our mishnah deals with the color of this red, called the patukh, which is translated as "variegation." Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva disagree as to the color of this variegation.

הפתוך שבסיד ההיכל – that which is combined in the plague which is like the lime of the Temple, appears. כדם המזוג בחלב – for the redness that is in it is greater. And even though it (i.e., the Mishnah) doesn’t teach פתוך/the variegation other than with the בהרת /discoloration and its derivatives or subcategories, the same law applies for there is also variegation in the שאת/swelling and its derivatives or subcategories, as it is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., the Sifra) (Leviticus 13:10): “a white swelling [on the /skin]/שאת לבנה [which has turned some hair white],” (see also Leviticus 13:19), it teaches that it defiles part of it. [The phrase] "בהרת לבנה אדמדמת"/a white discoloration/bright spot on the skin streaked with red (Leviticus 13:19), teaches that it defiles with variegation. From where [do we learn] to give that which is stated of this one and with that one (i.e., wine mixed with in snow and blood mixed in milk – describing the variegation of the lime in the Temple)? The inference teaches us (Leviticus 13:9): "נגע צרעת"/When a person has a scaly affection.

The variegation of the snow-like whiteness is like wine mixed with snow. The variegation of the lime-like whiteness is like blood mixed with milk, the words of Rabbi Ishmael. The "snow-like whiteness" refers to the archetype of the baheret mentioned in yesterday's mishnah. If the red is found in such a nega, it must be the color of wine mixed with snow. But if it is found in the duller white spot, the one that is the color of the lime plaster in the Temple, it must be like the color of blood mixed with milk, which I would assume is brighter.

שבזה ושבזה – that is in the snow and in the lime [of the Temple].

Rabbi Akiva says: the reddishness in either of them is like wine mixed with water, only that in the snow-like whiteness the color is bright while in that of lime-like whiteness it is duller. Rabbi Akiva says that in both cases, that of the snow-white baheret, and the lime-white baheret, the variegation must be noticeable, like the color of wine mixed with water. The only difference is that in the case of the snow-white baheret the color must be bright, whereas in the lime-white baheret it can be duller.

דיהה (is fainter) – it is missing from the whiteness, which is not bright/resplendent in its whiteness like it. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba.

מארבעה מראות הללו מצטרפין – we have the reading [of מארבעה/from among four] and we don’t have the reading of ארבעה מראות/four appearances, for all the four appearances do not combine/join together, that a derivative/subcategory does not join together with its primary category, and two derivatives/subcategories do not combine/join together with each other. But the two primary categories do combine. From what is written (Leviticus 13:2): "והיה בעור בשרו"/“and it develops [into a scaly affection] on the skin of his body,” but it is not written: "והיו" /”and they will,” which implies that one can make סאת/a swelling and בהרת/a discoloration/bright white spot on the skin like one thing, that if there is one-half of a [Cilicean] bean of this one and one-half of a [Cilicean] bean of that one, they combine to becoming a complete bean. But Maimonides wrote, that all four of the appearances (i.e., including the subcategories or derivatives] combine. And the Tosefta [Tractate Negaim, Chapter 1, Halakha 4] supports him.

Introduction For a nega to be impure it must be the size of a barleycorn. Our mishnah teaches that negaim of different colors, for instance, part is white like snow and part is like the skin of an egg, can join together to achieve the requisite barleycorn.

לפטור ולהחליט ולהסגיר (to absolve or to declare a person a leper or to lock up the leper pending the observation of the Kohen) – all of these things combine. And all of them are being explained.

These four colors combine with each other to declare free [from uncleanness], to certify or to shut up. These are the four colors mentioned in yesterday's mishnah, two shades of white and two shades of red. They can combine in three different ways, as the mishnah will now proceed to explain.

להסגיר העומד בשבוע ראשון – as it is written (Leviticus 13:5): “On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color [and the disease has not spread on the skin,] the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven [additional] days.”

"To shut up" one who is at the end of the first week; "To shut up" refers to putting a person who has shown some signs of having a nega into a sort of limbo status. If the nega doesn't get worse, then he is not impure, and if it gets worse then he is declared as having a nega. Here are the relevant verses: 4 But if it is a white discoloration on the skin of his body which does not appear to be deeper than the skin and the hair in it has not turned white, the priest shall isolate the affected person for seven days. 5 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him, and if the affection has remained unchanged in color and the disease has not spread on the skin, the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. Our mishnah teaches that if a person has nega of one color at the beginning of this process and is then "isolated" for a week and then is re-examined and the nega is one of the other colors then he is isolated for a second week. We don’t consider it to be a new nega which would make the process start all over again.

ולפטור את העומד בסוף שבוע שני – that which stands in its measure and did not spread and stood in its appearance, even though it did not go downward from the four appearances, he frees him at he end of the second week. But surely as it is written (Leviticus 13:6): “On the seventh day the priest shall examine him again: if the affection has faded [and not spread on the skin], the priest shall pronounce him pure,” that is not to say that he did not pronounce him pure unless [the affection] faded, but rather the Biblical verse teaches us that even if it changed from snow to lime, or from lime to snow, we don’t say that it is another plague and he returns and [the priest] isolates him as at the outset, but rather that he is as it stands, and he purifies him.

"To declare free [from uncleanness]", one who is at the end of the second week. If at the end of the first week of isolation there was a nega the size of a barleycorn that was the color of snow (or any other color), and at the end of the second week it has not spread but it is a different color, we treat it as if it is the same nega. Since the nega did not spread, the priest can declare him pure.

להחליט את שנולד לו מחיה ושער לבן בתחלה – that when he is brought to the Kohen at the beginning [of his being diagnosed with an affection] and he has upon him a discoloration like the Cilician bean or quick flesh like a squared lentil within the place of the discoloration, he declares him to be a leper immediately. And similarly, also for [the appearance of] white hair, for if it was black and he didn’t have sufficient time to shut him in until it had turned white, he declares him to be a leper immediately. But the spreading of a leprous spot (see Leviticus 13:7-8): “But if the rash should spread on the skin after he has presented himself to the priest and been pronounced pure, he shall present himself again to the priest. And if the priest sees that the rash has spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him impure; it is leprosy.”), even if it gradually spreads until he doesn’t shut him up [in isolation].

"To certify", one in which a discoloration or white hair arose, by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If half of the nega is one color and half is another color and there is discoloration or a white hair (see Leviticus 13:10) then the person is certified as impure. This is true whether the discoloration or white hair is present at the outset, when the first examination takes place, or at the end of the first week, after one week of isolation, or at the end of the second week, at the end of the second week of isolation.

בסוף שבוע ראשון – that is to say, to declare him to be a leper like this at the end of the first week, for from the outset he didn’t have these signs [of affliction] and they locked him up/isolated him, but at the end of the first week, he (i.e., the Kohen) found in him a patch of un-discolored flesh [in the swelling] (see Leviticus 13:10) or white hair, and he definitely declares him to be a leper.

"To certify", when a spreading arose in it by the end of the first week, by the end of the second week or after it had been declared free [from uncleanness]. If the nega spread, the person is declared impure even if the color of the spreading is different from the original color. This is true no matter when the spreading occurred; at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or even later on, after the person has been declared pure.

או בסוף שבוע השני – as for example, that at the end of the first week, it (i.e., the affection) remained unchanged and he did not have in either white hair or a patch of un-discolored flesh [in the swelling], [and the Kohen shut him in isolation a second time], and at the end of the second week, these signs appear, he (i.e., the Kohen) declares him to be a leper.

"To certify", when all one's skin turned white after it had been declared free from uncleanness; If after the person has been declared clean, the scaly affection erupts in the entire nega, the person is impure, even if it is a different color.

לאחר הפטור – meaning to say, that even after the clearance that was at the end of the second week, no signs of defilement appeared in him and they released/cleared him, but after a few days, they appeared, he (i.e., the Kohen) declares him to be a leper.

"To declare free from uncleanness’, when all one's skin turned white after the sign had been certified unclean or after it had been shut up. But if the same thing happens after the person has been either isolated or certified unclean, then he is declared pure (see 13:13).

את שנולד לו פשיון בסוף שבוע ראשון או בסוף שבוע שני – as for example, a discoloration like the size of Cilician bean which does not have in it a patch of un-discolored flesh or white hair and he (i.e., the Kohen) shut him in isolation, if it spread at the end of the first week or it didn’t spread other than at the end of the second week, he (i.e., the Kohen) declares him to be a leper. But if it did not spread neither in the first week or in the second week, and he released/cleared him, but after a couple of days it spread, he (i.e., the Kohen) declares him to be a leper.

These are the colors of signs of negaim upon which depend all decisions concerning negaim. This concludes the first three mishnayot.

להחליט את ההופך כולו לבן מתוך הפטור – if after he was released/cleared and the Kohen purified him, the leprosy spread throughout his body, he is impure and irrevocably confirmed as a leper.

לפטור את ההופך כולו לבן מתוך החלט או מתוך הסגר – if after the Kohen declared him impure, or after it was necessary to be shut him in isolation prior to his being made impure, and the leprosy spread throughout his body, he releases him and he is pure, for the white eruption which causes the leper to be declared clean changes someone from pure to impure and from the impure to the pure. And it is called an impure leper under trial [pending the priest’s observation – see Leviticus 13:4).

אלו מראות נגעים – these four appearances that we mentioned, smooth or variegated.

מראות נגעים שלשים וששה – and we don’t have the reading: "מראות נגעים ששה עשר" /”The appearances of plagues are sixteen. But there were thirty six, four appearances that are smooth and four appearances that are variegated of the skin of his body, and corresponding to them, with שחין/inflammation (or boil, skin-disease) and מכוה/a burnt spot on the skin, for the inflammation and the burnt spot are one, and Scripture did not divide them other than to tell you that they do not combine, and corresponding to them with the נתקים/bald (blanched) spot on the head or in the beard, and corresponding to them with קרחת/a leprous affection on the back of the head (making it bald) and גבחת/a leprous affection on the front of the head (making it bald), and ירקרק/pale-colored/greenish andאדמדם /reddish leprosy (see Leviticus 13:42), that are the plagues of houses, these are thirty-six.

Rabbi Hanina, the vice-chief of priests, says: the colors of negaim are sixteen. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: the colors of negaim are thirty-six. Akaviah ben Mahalalel says: seventy-two. The three rabbis in this mishnah sub-divide the four colors of negaim into either sixteen, thirty-six or seventy-two different colors. The same rules would apply as we learned in mishnah three. Evidently, these rabbis were simply more attuned to color than the other rabbis.

עקביא בן מחללאל אומר שבעים ושתים – these thirty-six at the outset when he (i.e., the potential leper) is brought to the Kohen, and thirty-six others corresponding to the end of the first week or the end of the second week of isolation or the end of the third week for plagues upon houses to distinguish between appearances [of plagues] ab initio to an appearance at the end, these are seventy-two. Maimonides explained them thusly, and he is sound/upright. But what is difficult to me about this is that he counts eight appearances of bald (blanched) spots on the head or in the beard, but we hold that bald (blanched spots on the head or in the beard defile in all appearances [of plagues] and they lack special appearances like the rest of the plagues.

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of priests says: negaim may not be inspected for the first time at the end of Shabbat, since the end of that week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Monday, since the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat; Nor on a Tuesday, in the case of houses, since the end of the third week will fall on Shabbat. If a priest examines a nega on Sunday (here called the end of Shabbat), then the end of that week, when it will be determined whether or not the person should be isolated, will fall on Shabbat, and it is forbidden to examine negaim on Shabbat. The same problem will occur if one examines the nega on Monday. The end of the first week will be on Sunday, and Sunday will count as both the end of the first week and the first day of the next week. Therefore, the end of the second week will fall on Shabbat. When it comes to the negaim that infect houses, there are three weeks of isolating. If the house is first examined on Tuesday, then the second week will begin on Monday and end on Sunday, and the third week will end on Shabbat.

ששבוע שני שלו חל בשבת – for two isolations, are thirteen days. For the seventh day of the first week counts for this week and the other [week], as it is written (Leviticus 13:5): "והסגירו [הכהן] שבעת ימים שנית"/ “the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.”, which teaches that the seventh day counts for him from the number from before it and from after it. And similarly, the three weeks of plagues on houses are not other than nineteen days, for the first and seventh [days] of the middle week count before them and after them.

Rabbi Akiva says: they may be inspected at all times, and if the time for the second inspection falls on Shabbat it is postponed to after Shabbat; and this procedure leads sometimes to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. Rabbi Akiva agrees that a priest cannot examine negaim on Shabbat. However, he disagrees as to whether this means that we need to adjust the original exam. Rabbi Akiva prefers to conduct the original exam on the day upon which the person/house is brought to the attention of the priest. If the seventh day falls on Shabbat, we simply delay the examination until after Shabbat. Sometimes this will lead to a leniency and sometimes to a stringency. The following two mishnayot will explain what these leniencies/stringencies are.

חל להיות בתוך השבת – that on the Sabbath days falls the seventh day, we don’t see him (i.e., examine him) on the Sabbath, because it appears like adjudication is taking place on the Sabbath day, but we delay it until after the Sabbath. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Akiba.

היה בו שער לבן – on the Sabbath day. And if he (i.e., the Kohen) had seen him, he would have declared him to be a leper, but after the Sabbath, the white hair disappeared, and this is ruling leniently. But even though that he (i.e., the Kohen) declared him to be a leper on the Sabbath day, when it (i.e., the white hair) left him after the Sabbath, he would have declared him pure, nevertheless, he would have to bring a sacrifice, according to the law of a מצורע מוחלט/confirmed leper – who has been declared conclusively ritually impure by a Kohen (A confirmed leper must grow his hair long and rend his garments) who became healed, but now is exempt.

Introduction This mishnah explains Rabbi Akiva's position from the end of yesterday's mishnah. There he claimed that sometimes delaying the examination of a nega can lead to a leniency. Our mishnah explains when this is so. The mishnah goes over numerous (and I'm not exaggerating) cases in which a nega would be declared impure had it been seen on Shabbat, but then changes to something that is not impure. Therefore, not seeing a nega Shabbat caused a leniency. What we now need to do is explain all of these scenarios.

היו לבנות – alternatively, if his hair was white on the Sabbath day that he would have been designated to have been declared a confirmed leper, and on the morrow (i.e., Sunday), [his hair] blackened, this is ruling leniently.

How does it lead to a leniency?
If the nega had two white hairs and one white hair disappeared. If there were two white hairs and they turned black. If one hair was white and the other black and both turned black. If they were long and then they became short. If one was long and the other short and both became short. On Shabbat, the person had two white hairs on his nega. Had the priest examined him that day, he would have certified him as impure. By the next day, there is only one white hair. If this was the end of the first week, the priest would isolate him for a second week and as long as the appearance stays the same, at the end of the second week he would be pure. Note that had the priest declared him impure, he would have had to bring a sacrifice and shaved the hair of his body. The mishnah now brings up various other scenarios in which on Shabbat there is a nega that would make him impure but then something happens to one of the hairs such that they are now no longer sufficient to make him impure. Only white hairs are impure and the hairs must be of sufficient length.

אחת לבנה ואחת שחורה והשחירו שניהן – he just refers to it by the way/without specific reason, for here one cannot be lenient, and whether it was white [and turned black] or had been black all along, he is ritually pure. But subsidiary to this/on account of, [as] the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] is stringent (see Mishnah 6), it (i.e., the Mishnah) took this term as it teaches, "ולהבינו"/and they became white – in both [clauses].

If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them. If the boil surrounded both hairs or one of them. Or if they were separated from each other by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, or the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf. For the hairs to be a sign of impurity, they must be inside a discoloration, swelling or rash. If they are in a boil they are not a sign of impurity. If they were in some type of discoloration on Shabbat and then they were either adjoined by a boil or surrounded by a boil, they are pure. The final piece here is a parenthetical remark regarding the boil mentioned above. Such a boil can either be a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn or the quick flesh of a burn, or "white scurf." Now if you don’t know what "white scurf" is don't worry. Albeck explains that it is some kind of whitish discoloration that is not considered impure. Note that if you google-image this, you will get many pictures of a white scarf. Pretty, but not very helpful.

ארוכות – his hair was [long] on the Sabbath day in order to cut it with scissors, that is the measure of defilement. On the morrow, they will be shortened, which is to be lenient.

If it had undiscolored flesh and this undiscolored flesh disappeared. Leviticus 13:10 says, 10 If the priest finds on the skin a white swelling which has turned some hair white, with a patch of undiscolored flesh in the swelling, 11 it is chronic leprosy on the skin of his body, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; he need not isolate him, for he is unclean." If it had such undiscolored flesh on Shabbat and then it disappeared, he is pure.

אחת ארוכה ואחת קצרה – he just refers to it by the way/without specific reason, for either way (i.e., whether is hair is short or long) is a pure. But on account of the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] that is to be stringent (see Mishnah 6), it (i.e., the Mishnah) took the phrase and taught: "והאריכו"/and they became longer, in both [clauses].

If it was square and then became round or elongated. For the undiscolored flesh to be impure it must be square. If it was square and then became round or elongated it is no longer impure.

נסמך השחין (if the inflammation/boil was attached) – to two hairs, after the Sabbath, but on the Sabbath he did not have a boil/inflammation on it, for had he (i.e., the Kohen) seen it on the Sabbath, he would declare him to be a leper on account of the white hairs that are within the bright white spot on the skin/בהרת, and now after the Sabbath when the boil comes and is attached to the two of them (i.e., hairs) or to one of them, is not a sign of defilement.

If it was encompassed and then moved to the side. If it was united and then it was dispersed. Or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf; If the discoloration is encompassed by the nega it is impure. Such was the case on Shabbat, but by the time Shabbat was over, it was not encompassed and it was pure. Alternatively, the discoloration was all in one place in Shabbat and then spread apart such that it is not impure. Or a boil entered the area of the discoloration and now the discoloration is now inside a boil. Or if any other way the boil or burn, or quick flesh of such, disrupted the discoloration then it is no longer impure.

הקיף השחין וכו' – or that the boil surrounded the two white hairs.

If it had a spreading and then the spreading disappeared; Or the first sign itself disappeared or was so lessened that both are less than the size of a split bean; Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burning, the quick flesh of a burning, or a white scurf, formed a division between the first sign and the spreading Behold these lead to a leniency in the law. If on Shabbat the nega had spread sufficiently for it to be impure, but then by after Shabbat the part that had spread had disappeared, it is pure. Or if the original nega completely disappeared, or if the original or spreading part had been diminished from the required amount (we will learn more about this later), then the nega is not impure.

או לאחת מהן או חלקן השחין – that the boil comes of the raw flesh of the boil or the burnt spot on the skin or the raw flesh of the burnt spot on the skin or the white scurf/בוהק between each hair. All of these on Shabbat are not there but after Shabbat came (i.e., appeared), this is a leniency.

If a boil, burn or quick flesh divide the nega into two, it is pure. In all of these cases we have learned that there is a fine line between a pure and impure nega. Something that is impure one day can be pure the next. As we shall see in tomorrow's mishnah, this can also lead to a stringency for something that is pure one day (Shabbat) can be impure the next.

היתה בו מחיה (if there was in it raw flesh) – on the Sabbath, which is a sign of defilement, and it went away after the Sabbath. Alternatively, it was quadrilateral on the Sabbath, and he was worthy of being declared a leper, but after Shabbat it became round or long, that now it is not a sign of defilement. Alternatively, an eruption was surrounded with raw flesh in the middle of the bright white spot on the skin/בהרת, like a kind of a fortress of a city that sits in the middle of the city, and through this, he was worthy of being declared a leper, but after Shabbat, it was made from the side. Alternatively, it was gathered/collected like a lentil in one place, but after Shabbat, it scattered.

ובא השחין ונכנס לתוכו – meaning to say, that on Shabbat there was no boil there, but the raw flesh was a sign of defilement, and the boil came and entered into it.

הקיפה או חלקה או מיעטה – meaning to say, or that the boil didn’t come on the entire plague but only on a part of the raw flesh, and became diminished from being like a lentil.

השחין ומחית השחין המכוה ומחית המכוה והבהק (the boil, the raw flesh of the boil, the burning and the raw flesh of the burning and the white scurf/tetter) – all of these exist for being diminished, for the boil was lessened or the raw flesh of the boil, that is, that a membrane was made like the shell of the garlic. Or the burnt spot on the skin or the raw flesh of the burnt spot on the skin. All of these that on the Sabbath were not there, but after the Sabbath came. And similarly, the white scurf/בוהק, that on the Sabbath were from the four appearances [of plagues] and on the morrow (i.e., Sunday), it became white scurf and the raw flesh lessened, for boils and white scurf lessen the raw flesh, as is taught in Torat Kohanim (i.e., Sifra, the Midrash Halakha on Leviticus): “living flesh,” (see Leviticus 13:14: “But as soon as un-discolored flesh appears in it, he shall be impure”/"וביום הראות בו בשר חי יטמא"), but not boils; “living flesh,” but not white scurf.

היה לו פסיון (if he had the spreading of a leprous spot) – on Shabbat.

והלך לו הפסיון – after Shabbat, for what spread on Shabbat was gathered in on the morrow (i.e., Sunday).

או שהלכה האום (or that the original leprosy- substance had disappeared) – the essence of the plague is called the אום/original leprosy, the original leprosy had disappeared and there remained the leprous spot, or that the original leprosy substance had become reduced , and there isn’t between them like the size of a Cilician bean.

השחין ומחית השחין – meaning to say, alternatively, on Shabbat it spread but did not stop on Shabbat between the original leprosy substance and the leprous spot neither the boils nor the raw flesh of the boils nor the burnt spot on the skin nor the raw flesh of the skin nor the white scurf, but after the Sabbath, one of these stopped, this is its leniency.

נסמך השחין – on Shabbat [the boil joined]

How does it lead to a stringency?
If it had no white hairs and then white hairs appeared; If they were black and then turned white; If one hair was black and the other white and both turned white; If they were short and they became long; If one was short and the other long and both became long.
If a boil adjoined both hairs or one of them, if a boil encompassed both hairs or one of them or if they were parted from one another by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, or the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf, and then [one of these things] disappeared.
If it had no quick flesh and then quick flesh appeared.
If it was round or long and then became four sided; If it was at the side and then it became encompassed. If it was dispersed and then it became united or a boil appeared and made its way into it. If it was encompassed, parted or lessened by a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn or white scurf, and then they disappeared;
If it had no spreading and then a spreading appeared;
If a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf formed a division between the first sign and the spreading and then they disappeared. Behold all of these lead to a stringency.
Today's mishnah is basically the opposite of yesterday's. It deals with scenarios in which the nega was pure on Shabbat, but then by Sunday, when it was examined it had become impure. We shall explain how this leads to a stringency.
Section one: On Shabbat there were no white hairs in the nega but since there were white hairs by the time he saw him after Shabbat, he is impure. This creates a stringency.
We should note that had the priest seen him on Shabbat, he would have put him into isolation and then when the white hairs appeared (or any other case mentioned below), he would have had to declare him impure. Therefore, we might ask why this is considered a stringency. The answer is that the extra week might have afforded him time to heal, and by the time the priest saw him a second time, he may have healed and never became impure.
The rest of the mishnah is just a reversal of the order found in yesterday's mishnah. To understand what is going on, refer back there. I will make a few comments that will help here.
Section two: On Shabbat there were signs that would prevent the nega from being impure. However, by the time Sunday rolled around those signs were gone. Similarly, in the cases below, the mitigating signs disappear right after Shabbat, before he is examined.
Section three: The quick flesh causes it to be impure.
Sections 4-6: See yesterday's mishnah.

לשתיהן – to the wo hairs, for now it Is not a sign of defilement, for the white hair is no a sign of defilement other than when it touches itself not within the boil or within the burnt spot on the skin.

אף הקיף השחין וכו' (even if the boil surrounded) – for if he (i.e., the Kohen) saw it on the Sabbath, he would not declare him to be a leper.

והלכו להן – and after the Sabbath [they went away], for the place of the boil and the burnt spot on the skin became a rough, scabby surface/scar, and it is like the skin of the body. And when he (i.e., the Kohen) declares him to be a confirmed leper, this is to be ruling strictly.

חולקין בין האום לפסיון ([the tetters/white scurf] divides between the starting point of leprosy and the spreading of the leprous spot) – that they would sop on Shabbat between the essence of the plague and the spreading.

והלכו להן – after the Sabbath, and here is nothing that stops/interrupts it, these are for ruling strictly.