I capelli di Pekudah - Akavya ben Mahalaleil dichiara impuri e i Saggi dichiarano puri. Qual è il pelo di Pekudah ? Qualcuno che aveva in mano un Baheret con i capelli bianchi, [se] il Baheret scompariva e lasciava i capelli bianchi al suo posto, e poi tornò - Akavya ben Mahalaleil lo dichiara impuro e i Saggi lo dichiarano puro. Il rabbino Akiva ha dichiarato: "Concordo [con i saggi] in questo [caso] che sia puro". Qual è il pelo di Pekudah [riguardo al quale il rabbino Akiva non è d'accordo con i saggi]? Qualcuno che aveva su di lui un Baheret come [la dimensione di] un fagiolo con due peli [bianchi] al suo interno, e poi [la dimensione di] mezzo fagiolo se ne andò e lasciò i capelli bianchi nell'area del Baheret e [ poi] restituito. Loro [i Saggi] gli dissero: Proprio come screditarono Akavya's parole, quindi anche le tue parole non saranno stabilite [come legge].
Bartenura on Mishnah Negaim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Negaim
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].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Negaim
אף דבריך אין מקויימין – for this also is pure. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim
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.
