meta: {"file": "/data/tomer/Sefaria-Export/txt_done/Modern Works/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Tahorot/English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim/English/merged.txt"}
text: English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim
  ביאור אנגלי על משנה נגעים
  merged
  
  This file contains merged sections from the following text versions:
  -Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp
  -
  
  English Explanation of Mishnah Negaim
  
  Introduction
  
  Leviticus 13-14 contains lengthy description of some sort of scaly disease that can inflict a person's skin, clothes or a home. Our tractate is an extended commentary, explanation and clarification of these laws. This is not the place for a critical commentary on these laws, why they occupy such an important place in the Torah, their parallels in other ancient cultures, and other such topics. For that I refer the reader to the JPS Commentary on Leviticus, or for more detailed reading, to the Anchor Bible Commentary on Leviticus. I strongly suggest reading these chapters carefully before beginning to learn the mishnaic material. 
  A note on my translation: many scholars doubt whether the Torah refers to the disease now known as leprosy. In my translation I have tried to use the transliterated terms as much as possible. This way the description the rabbis provide will speak for itself, rather than knowledge from the outside determining the meaning of these terms. Thus I will use the word "nega" or "negaim" to mean some sort of skin, clothing or house infliction. The Torah and the rabbis frequently use the word "baheret" or "se'et" to refer to these "plagues." I will occasionally use these terms as well, but "baheret" will usually be translated as white spot.  This will, I hope, increase our familiarity with the Hebrew original as well.
  Let me just give a brief intro to how the "nega" process works. A nega is a white spot found on a person's skin. In order for the nega to be impure it must have one of three signs: 1) white hairs; 2) quick flesh, which means that there is some live flesh within the nega; 3) the spreading of the nega. If the nega doesn't have one of these signs, the person is isolated for a week. If after the first week he still doesn't have one of these signs he is isolated again. If after two weeks he doesn't have one of the signs, he is pronounced pure. If he is declared impure at any time, he must burn his clothes and he is sent away from the camp.  
  The mishnah also talks about other skin problems, namely the boil (shekhin) and the burn (mikhvah). It also discusses negaim that occur on the head or beard, for they have their own rules and regulations.  
  For the rabbis, since there are so many verses in the Torah on the topic, it is one that will quite obviously occupy them (and there are fourteen chapters in this tractate). What I am trying to say (in a bit of a roundabout manner) is that even if negaim (scale disease) was not familiar to them, and was of no practical concern, it is "real" to them because the Torah pays so much attention to it.  Chapter 13 1 The Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying: 2 When a person has on the skin of his body a swelling, a rash, or a discoloration, and it develops into a scaly affection on the skin of his body, it shall be reported to Aaron the priest or to one of his sons, the priests. 3 The priest shall examine the affection on the skin of his body: if hair in the affected patch has turned white and the affection appears to be deeper than the skin of his body, it is a leprous affection; when the priest sees it, he shall pronounce him unclean. 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. 6 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him again: if the affection has faded and has not spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean. It is a rash; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 7 But if the rash should spread on the skin after he has presented himself to the priest and been pronounced clean, he shall present himself again to the priest. 8 And if the priest sees that the rash has spread on the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is leprosy.  9 When a person has a scaly affection, it shall be reported to the priest. 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. 12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see — 13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body — he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy. 16 But if the undiscolored flesh again turns white, he shall come to the priest, 17 and the priest shall examine him: if the affection has turned white, the priest shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean.  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. 20 If the priest finds that it appears lower than the rest of the skin and that the hair in it has turned white, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection that has broken out in the inflammation. 21 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in it and it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 22 If it should spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affection. 23 But if the discoloration remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the inflammation; the priest shall pronounce him clean.  24 When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the patch from the burn is a discoloration, either white streaked with red, or white, 25 the priest shall examine it. If some hair has turned white in the discoloration, which itself appears to go deeper than the skin, it is leprosy that has broken out in the burn. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 26 But if the priest finds that there is no white hair in the discoloration, and that it is not lower than the rest of the skin, and it is faded, the priest shall isolate him for seven days. 27 On the seventh day the priest shall examine him: if it has spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a leprous affection. 28 But if the discoloration has remained stationary, not having spread on the skin, and it is faded, it is the swelling from the burn. The priest shall pronounce him clean, for it is the scar of the burn.  29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean.  38 If a man or a woman has the skin of the body streaked with white discolorations, 39 and the priest sees that the discolorations on the skin of the body are of a dull white, it is a tetter broken out on the skin; he is clean.  40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head.  45 As for the person with a leprous affection, his clothes shall be rent, his head shall be left bare, and he shall cover over his upper lip; and he shall call out, "Unclean! Unclean!" 46 He shall be unclean as long as the disease is on him. Being unclean, he shall dwell apart; his dwelling shall be outside the camp.  47 When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, 48 in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin; 49 if the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest; 50 and the priest, after examining the affection, shall isolate the affected article for seven days. 51 On the seventh day he shall examine the affection: if the affection has spread in the cloth — whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used — the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. 52 The cloth — whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin — in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire. 53 But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin — has not spread, 54 the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days. 55 And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side. 56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth — whether in warp or in woof — or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire. 58 If, however, the affection disappears from the cloth — warp or woof — or from any article of skin that has been washed, it shall be washed again, and it shall be clean.  59 Such is the procedure for eruptive affections of cloth, woolen or linen, in warp or in woof, or of any article of skin, for pronouncing it clean or unclean. 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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).
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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.
  "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.
  "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.
  "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.
  "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.
  "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.
  "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).
  These are the colors of signs of negaim upon which depend all decisions concerning negaim.  This concludes the first three mishnayot.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with the problem that the color of negaim appear differently depending upon the skin color of the person being examined. This could undermine the objectivity of the examination
  The bright spot in a German appears as dull white, and the dull white spot in an Ethiopian appears as bright white.  A "bright spot" is impure, but on a pale German (I assume this means anyone from northern Europe) it will look dull. This would mean that he will be declared pure, even though he should not be. On the opposite end of the spectrum, a dull spot, which should not be impure, will look bright on an Ethiopian's skin. This will cause him to be isolated and then, if it remains, to be declared impure. The question is how do we deal with this situation?
  Rabbi Ishmael says: the children of Israel (may I be atonement for them!) are like boxwood, neither black nor white but of an intermediate shade.  Rabbi Ishmael says that we use the skin of Israelites, which is dark but not black, as the barometer. This is because the laws of negaim were stated with regard to Israelites. As an aside, Rabbi Ishmael offers to take upon himself vicarious atonement for Israel's sins.
  Rabbi Akiva says: painters have materials with which they portray figures in black, in white, and in an intermediate shade; let, therefore a paint of an intermediate shade be brought and applied around the outside of the nega, and it will then appear as on skin of intermediate shade.  Rabbi Akiva says that we actually paint the person's skin, at least around the nega. This way we can get an unbiased portrait of what shade the nega really is.
  Rabbi Judah says: in determining the colors of negaim the law is to be lenient and not stringent; let,therefore, the negaim of the German be inspected on the color  of his own body  so that the law is lenient, and let that of the Ethiopian be inspected as if it were on the intermediate shade so that the law is also lenient.  Rabbi Judah says that we always rule leniently. Therefore, if the spot looks dull on the German, he is pure. And if it looks bright on the Ethiopian, we estimate how it would look on a person of average skin color.
  The sages say: both are to be treated as if the nega was on the intermediate shade.  The sages disagree and say that all negaim are judged based on an average background. This opinion seems to agree with Rabbi Akiva.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Negaim may not be inspected in the early morning or in the evening, nor in a house, nor on a cloudy day, because then the dull white appears like bright white; nor may they be inspected at noon, because then the bright white appears like dull white.  If the nega is inspected in weak light or in too strong light it will be difficult to assess its true color.
  When are they to be inspected? During the third, fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah ruled: during the fourth, fifth, eighth or ninth hour.  Therefore it must be inspected in either the early part of the day or the later part of the day, but not at dawn or dusk. The day was divided into twelve hours. Roughly speaking, Rabbi Meir would say that the nega must be examined during the third, fourth and fifth hours of the day, and then later, from the eighth and ninth hours. Rabbi Judah says three is too early.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A priest who is blind in one eye or the light of whose eyes is dim should not inspect negaim; for it says, "Wherever the priest's eyes can see" (Leviticus 13:12).  The priest must have two fully functioning eyes in order to examine negaim.
  In a dark house one may not open up windows in order to inspect his nega.  A "dark house" is a house that doesn't have any windows. One should not open up new windows in such a house in order to examine a nega. However, Albeck notes that if a house already has windows, they may be opened to examine the nega.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with how a person is to be positioned when examined for a nega, such that his modesty is [at least to a certain extent] preserved. The verse we used in yesterday's mishnah "wherever the priest's eyes can see" also serves as the basis for today's mishnah. The priest's eyes should not examine parts of the body that should not be seen due to modesty. The exact parts will differ for men and women.
  What is [the posture] of examining negaim?A man is inspected in the posture of one that hoes or one that gathers olives.  If the nega is in between a man's legs, when being inspected he must stand as one who is hoeing would stand. He spreads his legs a bit and the priest can see the nega. But the priest doesn't have to look at the parts between his legs that he can't see when one is hoeing. I'm assuming that he is wearing some sort of cloak, but clearly not pants. The other private part that is dealt with here is under the armpits. The person would lift up his arms as if he is picking olives, and any part that still can't be seen need not be inspected.
  And a woman [is inspected in the posture] of one who is arranging dough and one who nurses her child, and one that weaves at an upright loom if the nega was in the right armpit.  If a woman has a nega in between her legs, she is inspected while in the posture of a woman who is arranging dough to go into the oven. This seems to require a very minimal amount of leg-spreading. If the nega is under her breast, any flesh that can be seen while nursing must be examined. I suppose that this implies that a woman would only uncover part of her breasts in order to nurse. When it comes to a nega found under the arm, if it is on her right arm, whatever part of her arm that she exposes while weaving on a loom is inspected by the priest. The rest is considered private.
  Rabbi Judah says: also in the posture of one that spins flax if it was within the left armpit.  Rabbi Judah says that when it comes to the left armpit, whatever she exposes when spinning flax is inspected. We should note that the mishnah ascribes to men and women work that each typically performed. Men typically worked in the field and women typically baked bread, took care of their children and made clothing. Their posture when examined is determined by their typical posture at work.
  Just as [is the posture] for examining for the nega, so too [is the posture] for shaving hair.  A metzora (one who had a nega) must shave his/her body when completing the period of impurity (see Leviticus 14:9). The parts of the body that must be shaved are the same as those that are inspected in the first place. In other words, private parts need not be shaved (sigh of relief!).
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that a person is not allowed to rule on a situation that effects his own status or possessions.
  All negaim may be examined by a person, except his own. Rabbi Meir ruled: not even the negaim of his relatives.  According to the first opinion, a priest can examine all negaim except his own. Rabbi Meir adds that he may also not inspect his relatives' negaim. Since being determined to have a nega would entail becoming impure for a potentially long period of time, allowing one to rule on his own negaim or those of his family would create a serious conflict of interest.
  All vows may be released by a person, except his own. Rabbi Judah says: not even those vows of his wife that affect relationships between her and others.  A sage has the ability to release others from their vows. However, he cannot release his own vows. Rabbi Judah says that he can't release his wife's vows either, unless they are concerning matters that would affect their relationship. This is a topic that is discussed at length in Tractate Nedarim.
  All firstlings may be examined by a person, except his own firstlings.  First-born animals are examined to see if they have a blemish. If they do, they may be slaughtered and eaten as if they were non-sacred animals. One may not examine his own first-born animals because this is an obvious conflict of interest.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien.  The laws of negaim apply to all Jews, even to minors and even to slaves. They do not apply to non-Jews or to the "resident alien (ger toshav)." According to one, common, definition of this category is that it refers to a non-Jew who has accepted upon himself to observe the seven Noahide laws.
  All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, "Say: 'unclean,'" and he repeats "unclean," or "Say: 'clean,'" and he repeats "clean."  In light of the Torah, we would think that only a priest is qualified to examine a nega. However, the rabbis say that while the priest must declare whether the person has a nega or not, anyone can determine whether it is a nega or not. The mishnah goes on to describe a priest being told by a sage whether to pronounce the nega clean or unclean. This seems to be part of the general rabbinic tendency to make the priests subservient to the sage. We need the priest, but the priest does not have the learning (according to the rabbis) to know when a discoloration of some sort is the type of nega referred to in the Torah.
  Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second.  One is not supposed to examine two negaim at the same time, whether both negaim are on the same person or on two different people.
  One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean.  If someone has been isolated already, and then he gets another nega, he is not isolated again based on the second nega. Neither can one who is already declared impure be declared impure for a second nega. Similarly, one who is already isolated cannot be declared impure, nor can one who is impure be isolated. Basically, if one already has one status, isolated/impure, he cannot be changed to the other status based on a second nega.
  But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean.  However, if the second nega appears before he is isolated for the first nega, or it appears at the end of the first week of isolation for the first nega before he is isolated for a second week or determined unclean or declared pure, then the priest can isolate or determine him unclean/clean for both negaim at the same time. Or he can isolate or determine him unclean for one nega, and declare him clean from the other. Basically, since the first week is up or has not yet even begun, he can determine the status of two negaim at the same time.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A bridegroom on whom a nega has appeared is given the seven days of the marriage feast [in which he is not examined]; [This grace period is given to] him, and to his house and to his clothing.  A priest should not examine a bridegroom, or a bridegroom's house or clothing, for a nega for the entire period of the seven day marriage feast.
  Similarly during a festival, one is granted exemption from inspection during all the days of the festival.  Similarly, nobody should be examined during a festival. In both occasions we fear that the nega would be pronounced impure and the person would have to be sent away in the midst of his marriage feast, or a festival and he would not get to rejoice with the community. This mishnah is testimony to the great significance the rabbis lent to the joyous occasion of a wedding or a festival. These celebrations override the biblical concern for a nega, so much so that we can ignore the nega for a week. We can also see from here that the issue with negaim is not one of health, for if it were, then we could hardly imagine delaying its treatment for a week.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  The remaining mishnayot of chapter three all deal with various types of negaim, what their signs are and how long their period of impurity lasts. The Mishnah will go into greater detail concerning these negaim later on in the tractate. These are just introductory mishnayot. The pattern and meaning of these mishnayot is quite repetitive so I will comment more on the first few examples and then reference those comments as we proceed.
  The skin of the flesh becomes unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by white hair or by quick flesh or by a spreading.  A person can be isolated and then declared impure within a period of two weeks based on a nega seen on his skin. Such a nega is determined by one of three signs: by a white hair, by some quick flesh, or by some sort of spreading. One of these signs will cause him to be declared impure.
  "By white hair or by quick flesh" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second  week, or after it had been pronounced clean.  A white hair or quick flesh will cause him to be declared impure whether seen during the first examination, after the first week of isolation, after the second week of isolation or even after he has been declared pure. In other words, these two signs will always cause him to be impure.
  "Or by a spreading," at  the end of the first week, at the end of the second week,   or after it had been pronounced clean.  In contrast, the spreading of the nega will cause him to be declared impure only if it is seen after the first week, after the second week or after he has been declared clean. If the nega has spread before he was even isolated, he is still pure.
  It becomes unclean for two weeks which are thirteen days.  The impurity lasts for thirteen days, and not the full two weeks because the last day of the first isolation count towards the first week and to the second week, as we learned in1:4.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  A boil or a burn becomes unclean for one week and by one of the following two tokens: by white hair or by a spreading.By white hair, in the beginning, at the end of the week, or after it has been pronounced clean."Or by a spreading:" At the end of the week, or after it had been declared clean. They become unclean for a week which is seven days.Section one: The Torah mentions a nega found in a boil or a burn (Leviticus 13: 18, 25). But it does not mention a two week period of isolation in connection with such a nega. Therefore, a person can become impure after only one week of isolation. Also, quick flesh is not a sign here, as it was for a nega found on regular skin.Sections two and three: These are the same as yesterday's mishnah, except there are only two signs and the uncleanness happens after one week, not two.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Head or beard ( negaim become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by yellow thin hair or by a spreading.  Today's mishnah deals with negaim that are found on the head or beard. This topic is dealt with directly in Leviticus 13:29. Such negaim are identified by a thin yellow hair (Leviticus 13:30) or by spreading.
  "By yellow thin hair" in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.  The yellow thin hair can serve as an identifying mark at the beginning of the examination period, or at the end of any of the weeks of isolation.
  "Or by a spreading," at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after they have been pronounced clean.  The spreading must occur at the end of at least one of the weeks.
  They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen days.  Same as mishnah three.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Scalp baldness or forehead baldness [negaim] become unclean for two weeks and by one of the following two signs: by quick flesh or by a spreading."By quick flesh," in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean."Or by a spreading," at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.They become unclean for two weeks which are only thirteen  days.Section one: Today's mishnah outlines the signs and length of impurity for negaim that appear on a bald head or a scalp (Leviticus 13:40).The remainder of this mishnah has already been explained above in mishnayot 2-5.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  According to Leviticus 13 clothes and houses can also contract negaim. Our mishnah deals with the signs of negaim for clothes (Leviticus 13:47ff).
  Garments become unclean for two weeks and by one of three signs: by a greenish color, by a reddish color or by a spreading.  The sign of a nega in a garment is a greenish or reddish color, or the spread of the nega later on in its development.
  "By a greenish colour or by a reddish color," in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.  When the garment is brought to the priest and it has a reddish or greenish nega, the priest will isolate it for one week. If the nega remains, he will isolate it for a second week. If it remains after two weeks, he will pronounce it unclean and burn the clothing.
  "Or by a spreading," at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, or after they have been pronounced clean.  Similarly, if it spreads, he will burn the clothing.
  They become unclean for two weeks which are but thirteen days.  Same as in previous mishnayot.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Houses become unclean for three weeks and by one of the following three signs: by a greenish color or by a reddish color or by a spreading."By a greenish color or by a reddish color," in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean."Or by a spreading," at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, or after they have been pronounced clean.They become unclean for three weeks which are nineteen days.None of the leprosy signs is for less than a week or for more than three weeks.Section one: A house has a three week period of impurity and not two like most human negaim and negaim found in clothes (see Leviticus 14:35ff). House impurity will be discussed in chapter twelve.The signs of a house nega are green or red colored spots, or a spreading after the initial nega has been identified.Sections two-four: Same as in previous mishnayot.Section five: This is a summary of all of the laws in most of this chapter. The shortest period is for the nega found in a boil or burn (mishnah four) and the longest period is for negaim found in a house.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  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).
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah compares the rules regarding the sign of "quick flesh" with the sign of spreading.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  After comparing white hair and quick flesh to spreading, the Mishnah now compares them to each other.
  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.
  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.
  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!).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with various rules concerning the two white hairs that appear in a nega.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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).
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  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.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  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?
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  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.
  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.
  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!
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  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?
  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.
  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.
  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."
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  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.
  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.
  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.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah clarifies when cases of doubt are deemed unclean.
  "But after uncleanness has been established a doubt is regarded as unclean."  This is a quote from mishnah four.
  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.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  The minimum size of a bright spot must be that of a Cilician split bean squared.The space covered by a split bean equals that of nine lentils.The space covered by a lentil equals that of four hairs;It turns out that the size of a bright spot must be no less than that of thirty-six hairs.Today's mishnah deals with how large a nega/bright spot must be for it to be impure.Section one:  The bright spot must be the size of a squared Cicilian split bean. Cicilia is an area in Asia Minor.Sections two-four: 9 x 4 is 36, so you can fit 36 hairs into a Cicilian bean. Either those are some big beans, or those are some hairy people!
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  If a bright spot was of the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh of the size of a lentil:  The bright spot is large enough to be impure and inside it there is quick flesh, which is one of the signs of impurity. The quick flesh is the size of a lentil, which is also the minimum size it needs to be in order to be impure.
  If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean.  It is obvious that if the bright spot grew larger, it is unclean. It was already unclean due to the quick flesh. This line is here because of the second half. If the bright spot grew smaller, it is pure because it is now less than the size of a split bean.
  If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, and if it grew smaller it is clean.  If the quick flesh grew larger, the nega is still impure, as long as it is still surrounded by the nega itself. However, if the quick flesh grew to be smaller than a lentil, the nega is pure, because that is the minimum size for the quick flesh.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A bright spot the size of a split bean and in it there was quick flesh less than the size of a lentil:  In this case, the nega is large enough to be impure, but the quick flesh is too small.
  If the bright spot grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller it is clean.  This section is obvious. It is only here to be contrasted with the other sections.
  If the quick flesh grew larger it is unclean, but if it grew smaller, Rabbi Meir rules that it is unclean; But the sages rule that it is clean, since a nega cannot spread within itself.  If the quick flesh grows larger it is obviously unclean. However, if it grows smaller that would mean that the nega (the bright spot) itself had spread into the place where the quick flesh used to be. Rabbi Meir says that since the nega spread, it is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. But the other sages say that the nega must spread out beyond its previous borders in order to be impure. Spreading into itself does not count as "spreading."
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  If a bright spot was larger in size than a split bean and in it there was quick flesh larger than a lentil, irrespective of whether they increased or decreased, they are unclean, provided that they do not decrease to less than the prescribed minimum. This case is quite straightforward both the nega and the quick flesh are larger than the required size for them to be impure. Therefore, they are immediately impure and it doesn't matter whether they increase or decrease. They will only become pure if they decrease to smaller than the prescribed size.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If a bright spot was the size of a split bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil encompassed it, and outside the quick flesh there was another bright spot, the inner one must be isolated and the outer one must be certified unclean. Rabbi Yose says: the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner bright spot is within it.  There are three levels inside this nega. An inner bright spot which is large enough to be impure, surrounded by quick flesh, surrounded by another bright spot. The outer bright spot has quick flesh in it, so it is impure. But the inner one does not have quick flesh in it, so it is only isolated (and if this is at the end of two weeks, it is pure). Rabbi Yose says that since the quick flesh has a bright spot within it, it is considered a divided piece of quick flesh, which is not a sign of impurity, even for the outer nega. Even it is not impure.
  If it decreased or disappeared: Rabban Gamaliel says: if its destruction was on its inner side it is a sign of spreading of the inner bright spot while the outer one is clean, but if its destruction was on its outer side, the outer one is clean while the inner one must be isolated. Rabbi Akiva says: in either case it is clean.  The mishnah now deals with a case where the quick flesh disappears or becomes smaller than a lentil. Rabban Gamaliel says that if the inner bright spot took over the quick flesh, then we consider the inner one as having spread and it is unclean. The outer one is pure because its quick flesh either disappeared or grew too small to be a sign of impurity. If the outer bright spot spread into the quick flesh, the outer one is also pure because its quick flesh disappeared or grew too small. The fact that the inner bright spot is now part of the outer one is not considered to be "spreading." The inner one has not changed so it still requires isolation, as in section one. Rabbi Akiva says that even if the inner one takes over the quick flesh (the quick flesh was destroyed to the inside), the nega is not considered to have spread and it is clean because a nega can't spread into another nega. The Tosefta adds that if this occurs after the first week of isolation, he would be isolated again based on the inner nega because it is still present. He is only pure if it doesn't spread after two weeks.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Yesterday's mishnah discussed a case where there is a bright spot which is inside some quick flesh which is in a larger bright spot. Rabbi Akiva says that if the inner bright spot spreads into the quick flesh it is pure, because a nega that spreads into another nega is not considered as having "spread."  In today's mishnah Rabbi Shimon qualifies Rabbi Akiva's statement.
  Rabbi Shimon said: when is this the case?  When the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. But if it was larger than a lentil, the excess is a sign of spreading of the inner one, and the outer one is unclean.  Rabbi Akiva's rule that if the inner nega spreads into the quick flesh both the inner and outer nega are pure is true if the quick flesh was exactly the size of a lentil. Once the quick flesh is smaller than a lentil, it is no longer a sign of impurity. However, if the quick flesh was larger than a lentil but then the inner nega (the bright spot) spread into it but the quick flesh remained at least the size of a lentil, the inside nega is impure. This is because the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered part of the nega but rather flesh. Therefore the inner nega spread into flesh and not into quick flesh and any time a nega spreads into flesh, it is impure. The outer nega is also impure because the quick flesh is large enough to be a sign of impurity. To summarize: the excess part of the quick flesh is not considered "nega," and thus the inner nega is considered to have spread. But since a lentil's worth of quick flesh remains, the outer one is also impure.
  If there was white scurf less that the size of a lentil, it is a sign of the spreading of the inner bright spot but it is not a sign of spreading of the outer one.  In this case instead of quick flesh being in between the inner and outer nega (bright spot) there is white scurf (mentioned in 1:5-6; it is a darker shade of white than that required for a nega). White scurf need not be the size of a lentil. If the inner nega spreads into the white scurf it is considered to have spread because white scurf is not a nega (it is not a sign of impurity, see 1:5), rather it is flesh. Thus even Rabbi Akiva would agree that the inner nega is impure. However, if the outer nega takes over the white scurf it is not considered to have spread, for spreading towards the inside of itself is not considered spreading (see above, mishnah three and five).
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  According to the rabbis, for a nega to be impure, it must be on a place on the body that it can be seen entirely at once. Therefore, if the nega is found on the tip of a limb with two sides (such as a finger) such that if one were to look at half the nega, the other half wouldn't be seen, the nega is not impure. Our mishnah lists which "tips of limbs" do not become unclean even if there is a nega on them.
  There are twenty-four tips of limbs in the human body that do not become unclean on account of quick flesh: the tips of the fingers and the toes, the tips of the ears, the tip of the nose, the tip of the penis; and also the nipples of a woman.  The twenty-four tips of limbs include the tips of all the fingers and toes, the tips of the ears, nose and penis. That equals twenty four. Added to that on a woman are the tips of her nipples.
  Rabbi Judah says: also those of a man.  Rabbi Judah adds the nipples of men. [I know this might be a bit funny, and I could make some comments, but I will refrain].
  Rabbi Eliezer says: also warts and warts with thin necks do not become unclean on account of quick flesh.  Rabbi Eliezer adds in various types of warts. Albeck explains that "warts with thin necks" are warts that appear on a limb that has been partially severed from a person. Does not sound pleasant.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah lists other parts of a man's body which cannot become impure even if they have a nega. There are different reasons for some of these places. Some of them are not considered "flesh." And others are considered to be in "hidden" spots, and a nega must be in a visible area for it to be a sign of impurity.
  The following places in a person do not become unclean on account of a bright spot: the inside of the eye, the inside of the ear, the inside of the nose and the inside of the mouth, wrinkles, wrinkles in the neck, under the breast and the armpit, the sole of the foot, the nails, the head and the beard; and a boil, a burn and a blister that are festering.  Most of these are self-explanatory. If a nega appears on the head or the beard it is not a sign of impurity. There are special rules governing these two areas, as we shall see below. With regard to a boil Leviticus 13 says, "18 When an inflammation (a boil) appears on the skin of one's body and it heals, 19 and a white swelling or a white spot streaked with red develops where the inflammation was, he shall present himself to the priest." The boil is only a sign of impurity when it is has healed. If it is still festering it is not. When it comes to the burn verse 24 states, "When the skin of one's body sustains a burn by fire, and the quick flesh (healed flesh) from the burn is a white spot, either white streaked with red, or white." Again, the burn must first heal. The same is true in the case of a blister. As long as they have not healed, they are not susceptible to negaim.
  All these: Do not become unclean on account of negaim Do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, Do not become unclean on account of quick flesh, And they do not act to prevent a person from being considered to have turned completely white.  The mishnah now goes over all of the special rules that apply to these areas of the body. A) If a nega appears on them, it is not a sign of impurity. B) If a nega on an adjacent piece of flesh is less than the size of a split bean and there is a nega on this piece of flesh as well, they do not combine with the other nega to make it large enough to be impure. C) If a nega is on a piece of adjacent flesh and it spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) If one of these areas is inside a larger nega, and it turns into quick flesh, the larger nega is not impure. E) If a person has turned completely white except for one of these areas, the absence of whiteness in these areas does not prevent him from being pure (one who has turned completely white is pure). In short, these areas are not considered to be flesh when it comes to the laws of negaim.
  If subsequently a bald spot arose in the head or beard, or if a boil, a burn or a blister formed a scar: They may become unclean by negaim, But they do not combine with other negaim, A nega is not considered to spread into them, And they do not become unclean on account of quick flesh. But they do act to prevent a person from being considered to have all turned white.  A bald head or beard is subject to certain laws of negaim (this will be discussed in chapter ten). Similarly, a boil, burn or blister that has scarred over is considered flesh and is subject to some of the laws of negaim. The mishnah now discusses what laws apply in these situations. A) If a nega appears in one of these regions it is a sign of impurity. B) Nevertheless, a nega that appears on a bald head or beard or on a boil, burn or blister that have not healed, does not join with a nega on regular skin to create the requisite split bean needed to be impure. C) Similarly, if a nega from an adjacent piece of flesh spreads into one of these areas, it is not considered to have spread. D) Same as section D above. E) But since negaim can be formed in these areas, if a person is completely white except for one of these areas, he is not considered to be completely white and he will be impure. We could summarize that these areas are susceptible to negaim, but they don't join with others because they are considered to be separate from other areas.
  The head and the beard before they have grown hair, and warts with thin necks on the head or the beard, are treated as the skin of the flesh.  A bald baby's head or face is susceptible to negaim impurity until hair begins to grow. These areas are only differentiated once hair appears. Warts that are sort of falling from a person's face (ok, this is yukky) count as flesh as well.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah lists negaim that are clean because when they were formed they couldn't count as negaim.
  The following bright spots are clean:Those that one had  before the Torah was given, Those that a non-Jew had when he converted; Or a child when it was born,  The halakhot concerning negaim were in effect only after the Torah was given. If an Israelite had a nega before the Torah was given the nega is not considered impure. The same is true if an individual had a nega before the Torah was given to him/her as an individual. This would include a non-Jew who converted and a child who was born. Since they were not governed by the laws of negaim when the nega formed, the nega is not impure even when they becomes subject to these laws.
  Or those that were in a crease and were subsequently uncovered.  We learned in 6:8 that if there is a nega in a crease in one's skin, it is not impure. This is true even if the nega becomes uncovered.
  If they were on the head or the beard, on a boil, a burn or a blister that is festering, and subsequently the head or the beard became bald, and the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, they are clean.  This section also refers to yesterday's mishnah. As we learned there, if negaim appear on the head or beard, or in a boil, burn or blister which are still festering, they are not impure. Our mishnah adds that even if these areas become susceptible to negaim by losing their hair or by healing, the nega that appeared when they were not susceptible is not a sign of impurity.
  If they were on the head or the beard before they grew hair, and they then grew hair  and subsequently became bald, or if they were on the body before the boil, burn or blister before they were festering and then these formed a scar or were healed: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said that they are unclean since at the beginning and at the end they were unclean, But the sages say: they are clean.  In these cases the nega was first formed in a place that was susceptible to negaim (before hair grew or before the boil, burn or blister was festering or perhaps had even formed) and then the place became unsusceptible, and then it returned to being susceptible. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says it is impure because it began in a place susceptible to impurity and ended in a place susceptible to impurity. The other sages say that since in between those two moments it was in a place that was at the time unsusceptible, the nega remains forever unsusceptible.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah is a continuation of yesterday's. It discusses a case where the nega was not impure because the person or part of body was not subject to negaim when it first appeared. Then when the person or area of body became subject to the laws of negaim the nega changed color. For instance, a non-Jew had a nega of a certain color and then once he converted, the nega turned into a different color. The question at hand is whether or not this must be treated as a new nega.
  If their color changed, whether to be lenient or stringent: How is it "to be lenient"? If it was white like snow and it became white like the lime of the Temple, or like wool or like the skin of an egg, or [as white] as the second shade of a rising or the second shade of bright white. How is it "to be stringent"? If it was the color of the skin of an egg and it became like white wool, the lime of the Temple or like snow.  There are two ways for the color to change. A whiter color can get darker (this is "to be lenient") and a darker color can become whiter (this is "to be strict"). These various colors are mentioned in 1:1.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah rules that they are clean.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah says that even if the color changes, it is still the same nega and since it started in a case of purity, it remains pure.
  Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says:  if the change was to be lenient it is clean, but if it was one to be stringent it must be inspected as if it were a new one.  Rabbi Eliezer Hisma distinguishes between white spots that get darker and darker white spots that get lighter. If the spot gets darker, the rule is lenient and it remains clean. But if it gets darker, we have to treat it as a new nega, and it must be examined afresh by the priest.
  Rabbi Akiva says: whether the change was to be lenient or to be strict it must be inspected as if it were a new one.  Rabbi Akiva says in either case it must be examined, for any change causes it to be considered a new nega.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah discusses what happens if while pronouncing whether a given nega is clean or unclean, there are changes in the nega.
  A bright spot in which there were no signs of uncleanness: At the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he is isolated; At the end of the second week or after it had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean. If while the priest was about to isolate him or to pronounce him clean, signs of uncleanness appeared in it, he certifies him as unclean.  If the bright spot has no signs of uncleanness (white hairs or quick flesh) he is isolated for one week and then for another, if the nega doesn't change. If at the end of two weeks no signs have developed, he is pronounced pure. This is all information we know and it is only here because of the next line. The mishnah adds that if while the priest is pronouncing him pure, signs of impurity appear, he must be certified as unclean.
  A bright spot in which there are signs of uncleanness, he certifies him as unclean. If while the priest was about to certify it as unclean the signs of uncleanness disappeared: If at the beginning, or at the end of the first week, he isolates him; But if at the end of the second week or after the spot had been pronounced clean, he is pronounced clean.  In this case the bright spot was already examined and certified unclean. This is obvious (like in section one). While pronouncing him unclean the signs of impurity disappear but the nega remains. If this occurs in the beginning or at the end of the first week, he is isolated as he would be with any nega that doesn't have one of the signs of impurity. However, if this occurs after the second week ,or after he has been pronounced clean the signs return to the nega and then while pronouncing him unclean they disappear again, he is pronounced clean. To summarize this mishnah: if the status of the nega changes while the priest is making his proclamation, the change must be taken into account, whether this causes a stringency (section one) or a leniency (section two).
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a person who removes the white hairs from a nega or burns the quick flesh in a nega. In other words, he tries to remove the signs of uncleanness.
  One who plucks out signs of uncleanness or burns quick flesh transgresses a negative commandment.  Deuteronomy 24:8 states, "In cases of skin affection be most careful to do exactly as the levitical priests instruct you." The rabbis read this as a prohibition against removing the signs of impurity.
  And as regards cleanness: If they were plucked out before he came to the priest, he is clean; But if after he had been certified as unclean, he remains unclean.  The mishnah now deals with the consequences of one who transgresses and removes the signs of impurity. In other words, even though he should not have done what he did, the signs are gone and therefore we must determine whether he is pure or not. If he did so before the priest examined him, he remains clean. However, if he removes them after he is already impure, his removal doesn't help and he remains impure.
  Rabbi Akiva said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they were on the way to Narbata, "What is the ruling if the plucking occurred while he was isolated?" They said to me, "We did not hear anything [about this case], but we have heard that if they were plucked before he came to the priest he is clean, and if after he had been certified as unclean he remains unclean." I began to bring them proofs: whether the man stands before the priest or whether he is isolated, he is clean unless the priest had pronounced him unclean.  This is a fascinating glimpse of how the sages discussed these matters with each other. Rabbi Akiva, the young intellect, catches Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua while they are making their way to Narbata, which is on the eastern side of Caesarea. He seems to have used the opportunity to ask them a question which was troubling him. He asks them about a case where the man plucked the signs out of the nega after he had been isolated but before he had been pronounced unclean. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua respond conservatively they never heard any answer to this question. All they know is what happens if he plucks the signs before the priest saw the nega or after he pronounced it unclean, the two situations presented in section two. These sages refuse to answer a question if they don't have a tradition concerning the answer. Not so the young whippersnapper of a rabbi, Rabbi Akiva. He presents them with proofs that as long as the person has not been pronounced unclean, he is pure. The mishnah does not present what the argument that Rabbi Akiva makes is. Such an argument is presented by the Tosefta and there we learn that the other sages agree with him.
  When does he attain cleanness [after he has been certified unclean]? Rabbi Eliezer says: after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness  after it. But the sages says: only after another nega has spread over his whole body or after his bright spot has been reduced to less than the size of a split bean.  This section deals with a difficult problem. Normally, when one is pronounced impure because of a nega, he becomes pure when the signs disappear. However, this person removed the signs himself and therefore this can't be the sign of impurity. Rabbi Eliezer says that he is not pure until he gets another nega and then it becomes pure. It seems that the purification from this second nega is an opportunity to purify him from the first nega as well. The other sages say that this doesn't work. He has to have the nega spread to his entire body at which time he would become pure even if the signs of impurity were still there. The other way for him to become pure is for the nega itself to disappear. This would make him pure even if the white hair or quick flesh was still there.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with a nega (the bright spot) that is cut off intentionally or unintentionally.
  If one had a bright spot and it was cut off, he becomes clean;  If the bright spot was cut off unintentionally we treat it as if it just disappeared and he is pure.
  If he cut it off intentionally: Rabbi Eliezer says: [he is clean] only after another nega arises in him and he has attained cleanness after it. But the sages say: only after it has spread over all his body.  If he cut it off intentionally after he was already impure, he is in the same situation as described in yesterday's mishnah. Rabbi Eliezer says he must wait until another nega appears and he is purified from that nega. The sages say that he must wait until the nega spreads over his whole body. Until then he is impure. Note that this mishnah can't say "until the nega becomes smaller than a bean" because it has already disappeared.
  If it was on the tip of one's foreskin, he should be circumcised.  Circumcision is a positive commandment. It overrides the prohibition not to cut off a nega. Therefore if a nega appears on the tip of the foreskin that is about to be circumcised, the circumcision is still performed.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The following verses from Leviticus 13 teach that if the nega (leprosy) breaks out completely over the person's entire body, he is clean.
  12 If the eruption spreads out over the skin so that it covers all the skin of the affected person from head to foot, wherever the priest can see   13 if the priest sees that the eruption has covered the whole body   he shall pronounce the affected person clean; he is clean, for he has turned all white. 14 But as soon as undiscolored flesh appears in it, he shall be unclean; 15 when the priest sees the undiscolored flesh, he shall pronounce him unclean. The undiscolored flesh is unclean; it is leprosy.
  Chapter eight deals with the details of these laws.
  If a nega broke out completely upon one who was unclean, he becomes clean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he becomes unclean until the bright spot is reduced to less than the size of a split bean.  If the person was already declared unclean, and then his entire body turned white, meaning the nega spread to his entire body, he is clean. This is the simple interpretation of the biblical verses sited above. If any part of his body, even the ends of his limbs, returns to not being white, he becomes unclean. This is an interpretation of verse 14 above. He will remain impure until the size of the nega is reduced to less than the size of a split bean, the minimum size for an impure nega.
  [If it broke out completely upon him] when he was clean, he becomes unclean; If the ends of his limbs reappeared, he remains unclean until his bright spot resumes its former size.  In this case, the nega spreads to his entire body after he has been pronounced clean by the priest, probably because the nega had not spread. In this case, the spread of the nega is a sign of uncleanness. He remains impure if the nega retracts and parts of his limbs return to their natural color. Note that a person with a nega over part of his body is impure this is no different from any other situation. However, if the nega (bright spot) returns to its original proportion, then its "spreading" has disappeared. At this point he becomes pure again.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A bright spot the size of a split bean in which there was quick flesh the size of a lentil and then it broke out covering a person's entire skin and then the quick flesh disappeared, or if the quick flesh disappeared and then the bright spot broke out covering all his skin, he is clean.  At the outset, this person had a bright spot (nega) with quick flesh and the priest declared him impure. Then the nega spread to his entire body, except for the quick flesh (where there is no nega) and then the nega spread to the area of the quick flesh as well. Since the nega now covers his entire body, he is pure. The mishnah teaches that the nega does not need to cover his entire body in one stage. The same is true if the quick flesh first disappears and then the nega spreads to the entire body, including the area that had previously been quick flesh. Since it covers his entire body, he is pure.
  If quick flesh arose [subsequently], he is unclean.  If quick flesh appears in the midst of a nega that covers his entire body, he is impure because the nega no longer covers his entire body. See Leviticus 13:14.
  If white hair grew [subsequently]: Rabbi Joshua rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that he is clean.  The mishnah now discusses what happens if white hair appears in the midst of the nega that covers his entire body. Leviticus 13:14 says that if quick flesh (undiscolored flesh) appears in the body-covering nega he is impure. Rabbi Joshua reasons that just as quick flesh is a sign of impurity so too is white hair, which is also usually a sign of impurity. The sages read the Torah more literally. Since the Torah mentions quick flesh and not white hairs, it means to say that quick flesh and not white hairs is a sign of impurity in a body-covering nega.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A bright spot in which there was white hair and then it broke out covering his entire skin, even though the white hair remained in its place, he is clean.  Even though the white hair remains, the fact that the bright spot spread to cover his entire body means that he is pure. In this case even Rabbi Joshua, who holds that if a white hair appeared in a body-covering nega he is impure, agrees that since the white hair was there before the nega covered his entire body, he is pure. The rule that we learned in mishnah one applies here if a person is declared impure and then a nega breaks out and covers his entire body, he is pure.
  A bright spot in which there was a spreading and then it broke out covering his entire skin, he is clean.  Again, if a nega breaks out and covers the entire body after one has been declared impure (here because the nega had already spread), he is pure.
  But in all of these cases if [even] the ends of the his limbs reappeared [in their natural color], he is unclean. If it broke out covering a part of his skin he is unclean; If it broke out covering all his skin he is clean.  If even the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he becomes impure again. This halakhah is the same as that found in mishnah one. The last two lines of this mishnah are a type of explanation for section three. Since he is unclean if the nega spreads to only part of his body, he is unclean if the ends of his limbs reappear in their natural color. He is clean only if the nega covers his entire body.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  In all cases of breaking out and covering the ends of the limbs whereby the unclean have been pronounced clean, if they reappeared they become unclean again.  In any case where a nega covered a person's entire body and even the ends of his limbs and he was pronounced clean, and then the ends reappeared in their natural color he is unclean. This is as we learned in mishnah one: if a nega covers a person's entire body and he was previously impure, he is pure. If the nega retracts, he becomes impure again.
  In all cases of reappearance of the ends of the limbs whereby the clean have been pronounced unclean, if they were covered again these become clean again.  If the ends of the limbs are first uncovered (meaning the nega disappears) and then they are covered again by the nega, the person goes back to being pure. This is another case of a nega covering an impure person's entire body.
  If subsequently they become uncovered these are unclean, even if this occurs a hundred times.  This process can continue without end. In other words, the rule that if a nega spreads to one's entire body and that person was previously impure that he becomes pure remains no matter how many times the process occurs.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Any part [of the body] that can be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega can prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out [over the entire body], and any part that cannot be subject to the uncleanness of a bright spot nega does not prevent the effectiveness of the breaking out abroad.  In 6:8 we learned that there are some parts of a person's body that are not susceptible to negaim under certain circumstances (a head or beard with hair, a festering boil, burn or blister). This means that if a nega appears there he is not impure. Since these spots are not susceptible to negaim, they also do not prevent a nega from being considered as having spread to one's entire body. He is pure even if the nega doesn't spread there. Simply put these parts (under certain circumstances) are not relevant to the laws of negaim. However, any part that is subject to negaim, does prevent the nega from being considered to have spread to his entire body, if the nega does not spread there.
  How so? If it broke out covering all of his skin, but not on the head or the beard, or on a festering boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, he is clean.  The mishnah now illustrates this principle. At first the nega spreads to his entire body, except to parts that are not susceptible to negaim (for an explanation of these parts see 6:8). Subsequently, these parts changed so that they have become susceptible to negaim. Despite the fact that the nega is now not found on parts that are susceptible to negaim, he is still pure since when the nega spread to his entire body these parts were not susceptible. In other words, if the person is pure because the nega covered all susceptible parts of his body, he remains pure even if other parts later become susceptible.
  If it broke out covering all of his skin, except a spot of the size of half a lentil near the head or beard, or near a boil, burn or blister, and then the head or the beard became bald, or the boil, burn or blister turned into a scar, even though the place of the quick flesh became a bright spot, he is unclean unless it breaks out covering all his body.  In this case the nega spread to his entire body, except to one tiny part. He is now impure because the nega did not actually spread to his entire body. This part was adjacent to a part of the body that was not susceptible to negaim. Subsequently, two things happen. The nega spreads to the small spot that it had not previously spread to. And the parts that were not susceptible become susceptible. In this case he is impure because at the time when the nega spread to his entire body, the head, beard and previously festering spots had already become susceptible to negaim. He will be impure until the nega spreads to these spots as well.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If there were two bright spots, one unclean and the other clean, and they broke out from one to the other, and then [a nega] broke out covering all of his skin, he is clean.  In this case a person has two white spots (negaim) one of which has been pronounced clean and one of which has been pronounced unclean. The nega then spreads from one to the other and then breaks out over his entire body. He is deemed to be pure because the nega has spread to his entire body. We don't consider this to be a case where the nega covered his entire body "from a point of purity" because we consider the spreading over his body to have come from the impure nega and not from the pure bright spot.
  [If the bright spots] were on his upper lip and lower lip, or on two of his fingers, or on his two eyelids, even though they cleave together and appear as one, he is clean.  In this case, the two bright spots, one pure and one impure, are from two adjoining parts of his body that can be put together to look like one. We might have thought that the nega spread over his whole body from a pure bright spot, in which case he is impure. However, the mishnah says that since these are actually separate bright spots and one is impure, the situation is the same as in section one and he is ruled pure.
  If it broke out covering all his skin except white scurf, he is unclean.  White scurf is a white spot that is darker than the color of any of the four shades of white required of a nega (see 1:1). If the nega covers his whole body but the white scurf remains, he is still impure because the nega is not considered to have covered his entire body.
  If the ends of his limbs reappeared in the color of white scurf, he is clean.  Although white scurf can prevent the nega from being considered to have spread over his whole body, if white scurf appears on a person who already had a nega cover his whole body, it is not considered to be the normal color of flesh and he remains pure. The Torah says that if undiscolored flesh appears on the person covered with the nega, he is impure. But white scurf is not undiscolored flesh, so this person stays pure.
  If the ends of his limbs reappeared to the extent of less than a lentil: Rabbi Meir rules that he is unclean, But the sages rule that a piece of white scurf less in size than a lentil, is a sign of uncleanness in the beginning, but it is not a sign of uncleanness at the end.  According to Rabbi Meir if any part of his limbs returns to its natural color, even if it is less than the size of a lentil, he becomes impure again. The rabbis disagree. They address two cases here: white scurf and quick flesh less than the size of a lentil. In both of these cases, if the nega does not spread there at the outset he is still impure. So if any flesh is not covered by the nega, he is still impure. However, when it comes to retracting from a nega that covered the entire body, these are not signs of a return to impurity. If a piece of white scurf emerges or quick flesh returns to a spot smaller than the size of a lentil, he remains pure
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  One who came [in front of the priest] with all his body white is isolated.  Someone who comes in front of a priest and is already completely covered by a nega is to be isolated, just as if he had come in front of the priest with a bright spot the size of a split bean. He isn't pure, because a nega covering the whole body is a sign of purity only if he was already impure.
  If white hair grew, he is certified unclean. If both hairs or one of them turned black, If both or one of them became short, If a boil adjoined both or one of them, If a boil surrounded both or one of them, Or if a boil, the quick flesh of a boil, a burn, the quick flesh of a burn, or white scurf divided them [he is pure].  If white hair grew at the end of the first or second week, then he will be certified unclean. The remainder of this section are all circumstances that makes the person pure. The mishnah listed these things and I explained them in 1:5.
  If quick flesh or white hair arose, he is unclean; But if neither quick flesh nor white hair arose he is clean.  This goes back to referring to the person who came to the priest totally covered by a nega. Quick flesh and white hair are both signs of impurity and therefore if they develop after the first or second week he is impure. And if either of these signs does not appear, then he is pure.
  In all these cases if the ends of his limbs reappeared he remains as he was before.  Whether or not quick flesh or white hair appeared or whether it appeared and then disappeared, if the ends of his limbs return to their natural color, he stays pure. This is not like a normal case where the natural color returns to a person who had been fully covered by a nega, since in this case he was not made pure by having become fully covered. In other words, this person is treated as if he simply came in front of the priest with a nega. If signs appear, he is impure. If signs don't appear or appear and then disappear, he is pure, even if the nega begins to leave parts of his body.
  If the nega broke out, covering a part of him, he is unclean. If it broke out covering all of them, he is clean.  If after the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs the nega begins to spread again, he is impure because spreading is a sign of impurity. If it then spreads and covers his entire body he is pure, for this is a case of spreading over the entire body of one who is impure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If it broke out covering all of his skin all at once: If this originated in a condition of cleanness, he is unclean; But if it originated in a condition of uncleanness, he is clean.  As we have learned, sometimes if a nega breaks out and covers someone's whole body he is impure. For instance, if he comes in front of a priest already covered in a nega, he is isolated. And then, the natural color returns to the ends of his limbs and then the nega spreads back to cover his entire body, he becomes impure. However, if someone comes in front of the priest when he is totally covered and a sign of impurity comes up (white hair or quick flesh) he is impure. When the ends of the limbs reappear he stays impure. If the nega now spreads to his whole body, he becomes pure.
  One who becomes clean after having been isolated is exempt from the uncovering his head and rending his clothes, from shaving his hair and from bringing the birds. If he becomes clean after he had been certified unclean, he is liable to all these. Both convey uncleanness by entering.  The end of this mishnah compares a person who becomes clean after having been isolated with one who becomes clean after having been declared unclean. The former is not liable to uncover his hair or rend his clothes (see Leviticus 13:45), nor is he liable to shave his body or bring bird sacrifices (see Leviticus 14:1-9). Only one who was certified unclean is liable to do so. However, both a metzora (one who had a nega) who had been isolated and one who had been declared unclean convey uncleanness by entering a house. This is a topic to which we will return in chapter 13 (so stay tuned!).
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If one came with his whole body white, and on it there was quick flesh to the extent of a lentil, and then the nega spread out covering all his skin, and then the ends of his limbs reappeared:  I will chart out the stages in this scenario one by one: Stage one: His whole body was covered with a nega except for a spot with quick flesh. This means he is impure. Stage two: The nega then spreads over the quick flesh. He is now pure. Stage three: The ends of his limbs reappear.
  Rabbi Ishmael says: this is the same as when the ends of the limbs reappear in that of a large bright spot.  Rabbi Ishmael says that this is similar to a case we learned about in mishnah seven. A person comes in front of a priest with a nega already covering his whole body and then signs of impurity appear (he is impure) and then they disappear (he is pure). If the ends of his limbs reappear, he remains pure as he was before. So too here when the nega spread to his whole body we consider it as if he is beginning with a large bright spot, one that covers his whole body. The reappearance of natural color in his limbs is not a sign of impurity.
  Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah ruled: as when the ends of the limbs  reappeared in a small bright spot.  Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says that since at the outset there was some quick flesh in his nega (the one that covered the rest of his body) this person is not considered to be like someone who was totally covered at the outset. Rather this person is like someone who had a nega that made him impure, and then it spread to his whole body, thereby making him pure. When his limbs reappear he returns to being impure.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  There is one who shows his nega [to the priest] and thereby gains advantage, while there is one who shows and loses.  The mishnah notes the paradox that sometimes a person can benefit by showing his nega to a priest and sometimes he loses out.
  How so? If one was certified unclean and the signs of his uncleanness disappeared, and before he could show it to the priest the nega broke out covering all his skin, he is clean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been unclean.  He benefits in the following situation. He was already certified unclean and then the signs of his uncleanness (white hair, quick flesh or spreading) disappeared. Had he gone to see the priest now the priest would have declared him pure. The nega then spreads to his whole body. Since he did not go to the priest to be purified, this is a case of a nega covering a person who is already unclean. He is now clean. Had he gone to the priest, then this would be a case of a nega covering a clean person, in which case he would be impure.
  If he had a bright spot in which there was nothing else, and before he could show it to the priest it broke out covering all his skin, he is unclean; whereas if he had shown it to the priest he would have been clean.  He has a bright spot with no sign of impurity. Had he gone to the priest he would have isolated him. But before he can go to the priest it spreads over his whole body. He now requires isolation, as we learned in mishnah seven. Had he gone to see the priest when the bright spot first appeared, he would have been isolated and then when the nega spread he would have been declared pure, because a nega that spreads over a person who has been isolated causes him to be declared pure.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter nine deals with a nega that forms in a boil or a burn. This is dealt with in Leviticus 13:18-28.
  A boil or a burn may become unclean in a week and by two signs: by white hair or by a spreading.  As we learned in 3:4, when it comes to a nega in a boil or burn, only white hair and spreading are signs of impurity. Quick flesh is not. And there is only one week of isolation, not two as there are with other negaim.
  What is a "boil"? An injury received from wood, stone, peat, or the waters of Tiberias, of from any other object whose heat is not due to fire is a  boil.  What I have translated as "boil" is really an inflammation due to contact with something hot other than fire. "Peat" is the refuse from the pressing of olives and it can be very hot when removed from the press. The waters of Tiberias are hot springs.
  What exactly is a "burn"? A burn caused by a live coal, hot embers, or any object whose heat is due to fire is a burning.  A burn is from contact with something that had contact with fire.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  A boil and a burn do not combine, nor do they spread from one to the other, nor do they spread from there to the skin of the flesh, nor does [a nega] on the skin of the flesh spread to them.  If there is a boil the size of a half a split bean and a burn the size of half a split bean, they do not combine to form a nega the size of a split bean. Also, if a boil and a burn are right next to each other and the nega spreads from one to the other, it is not considered as having spread and it is pure. If the nega spreads from the boil or burn to other skin, or if a nega from other skin spreads into the burn or boil, it is not considered to have spread. Rather, the nega must spread within the boil or burn. Put simply: the burn and boil nega are considered completely separately from an adjacent nega.
  If they were festering they are clean.  If the boil or burn is still festering, it is pure. This was explained in 6:8.
  If they formed a scale as thick as garlic peel, such is the scar of the boil that is spoken of in the Torah.  Leviticus 13:23 states, "But if the boil (inflammation) remains stationary, not having spread, it is the scar of the boil (inflammation); the priest shall pronounce him clean." The rabbis explain that this doesn't refer to a boil (or burn in v. 28) that have healed completely. Rather, a little bit of a scab seems to have formed on it. Since the bright spot didn't spread (see the verse) he is not isolated for a second week, as he would be for other negaim. Rather he is pronounced clean.
  If they were subsequently healed, even though there was a mark in their place, they are regarded as the skin of the flesh.  If the boil or burn completely heals, it is treated like regular skin, even if a mark remains. If a new nega appears there, the nega is treated like a regular nega, and not one that formed in a boil or burn.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah contains a fascinating discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and the other sages, which reveals Rabbi Eliezer's personality as the arch-conservative sage.
  They asked R. Eliezer: "[What is the ruling concerning] one who had a bright spot the size of a sela form on the inside of his hand and it covered up the scar of a boil?"  The sages ask Rabbi Eliezer about someone who had a nega form on the palm of his hand and it covered up a smaller boil that had already scarred over.
  He replied: "He should be isolated."  Rabbi Eliezer answers that he should be isolated to see if it will develop a sign of impurity.
  They said to him: "Why? Since it is neither capable of growing white hair nor can it effectively spread nor does quick flesh cause it to be unclean?"  The other sages point out that this is problematic. Hair does not grow on the palm of one's hand so he can't become impure for that reason. It cannot be considered to have spread for a nega formed in a boil or burn must spread into the area of the burn or boil, and in this case it already fully covers the burn or boil. Nor is quick flesh a sign of impurity inside a burn or boil. Therefore it seems that there is no reason to isolate this person for he cannot become impure.
  He replied, "It is possible that it will contract and then spread again."  Rabbi Eliezer says it is possible that after the first week the nega will retract a bit and then the priest will declare him pure. If the nega would then spread back into the burn or boil, he would be impure.
  They said to him, "But what about when its only the size of a split bean?'  The problem with Rabbi Eliezer's answer is that it only works if the burn/boil underneath the nega was originally the size of a sela, which is larger than a split bean. If the burn/boil was the size of a split bean then when the nega retracts and then spreads it will still spread into regular skin, which doesn't count as spreading. And if the nega retracts to being smaller than a split bean, the nega is considered to have disappeared. The priest will pronounce him pure and if it spreads again, this is not considered "spreading" but rather a new nega.
  He said to them: I have not heard anything. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him, "Can I teach something about this?" He replied, "If you would thereby confirm the ruling of the sages, go ahead." He said, "Lest another boil would arise outside it and spread into it. He replied: "You are a great scholar for you have confirmed the words of the sages."  To this Rabbi Eliezer has no answer. He knows that the sages said that he should be isolated, but he doesn't know why. Rabbi Judah ben Batera asks permission to give an answer. Fascinatingly, Rabbi Eliezer says that he can give an answer but only if it explains the sages' opinion that he should be isolated. He is not allowed to disagree with this reason. Here we see Rabbi Eliezer's conservative tendencies. He allows a new explanation, but only if it upholds the older halakhah. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says he is isolated lest another boil appears outside of the first boil, and then the latter nega spreads into the former. A nega from one boil can spread into a nega from another boil. Rabbi Eliezer seems to be overjoyed at his student's answer, not for its inherent wisdom, but because it explains the words of the sages.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter ten deals with negaim that appear on one's head or beard. These negaim are called "scalls" or "netek/netakim". According to the rabbis the scall appears on a place on the beard or head from which regular hair has already fallen out. First the hair falls out and then the scall appears. At this point, the priest is to determine whether it is impure or not, as he does in other cases of negaim. The following are the relevant verses from Leviticus 13 that deal with the scall.
  29 If a man or a woman has an affection on the head or in the beard, 30 the priest shall examine the affection. If it appears to go deeper than the skin and there is thin yellow hair in it, the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is a scall, a scaly eruption in the hair or beard. 31 But if the priest finds that the scall affection does not appear to go deeper than the skin, yet there is no black hair in it, the priest shall isolate the person with the scall affection for seven days. 32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days. 34 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the scall. If the scall has not spread on the skin, and does not appear to go deeper than the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; he shall wash his clothes, and he shall be clean. 35 If, however, the scall should spread on the skin after he has been pronounced clean, 36 the priest shall examine him. If the scall has spread on the skin, the priest need not look for yellow hair: he is unclean. 37 But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean. The priest shall pronounce him clean.
  Scalls may become unclean for two weeks and by two signs: by thin yellow hair and by spreading.  This section was found above in 3:5. Negaim of the beard or head have a two week period in which their impurity is examined, as do the other negaim we have discussed up until now. They are impure if yellow hair appears, or if they spread.
  By thin yellow hair: means stunted and short, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: even though it is long.  The rest of the mishnah discusses what the Torah means by "thin yellow hair" (Leviticus 13:30). Specifically, there is a debate whether the hair must be short as well as thin. Rabbi Akiva says that it must be both "stunted" which means that it is thin, or poor in quality. And it must also be short. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri argues that it is a sign of impurity even if it is long.
  Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: what is the meaning of the expression when people say, "This stick is thin," or "This reed is thin"? Does "thin" imply that it is stunted and short and not stunted and long? Rabbi Akiva replied: before we learn from the reed let us learn from hair, [for they say] "So and so's hair is thin": "thin" means that it is stunted  and short and not stunted and long.  The mishnah now records a fascinating argument between these two rabbis, each defending his own position. Both argue that they can interpret the meaning of "thin" from the way in which people commonly speak. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points out that when people say "thin" as in "this stick is thin" or "this reed is thin" they mean that it is thin but they don't necessarily mean that it is short and thin. The adjective "thin" implies nothing when it comes to length. Rabbi Akiva says that the word "thin" does imply "short" when it comes to hair, which is after all the subject at hand. People will call hair "thin" and what they really mean is thin and short. As someone who used to have "thinning" hair, I'm going to have to side with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri. Some of those lone hairs left on my head were indeed quite long, even if they were few and far in-between!
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  In today's mishnah two sages argue whether the thin yellow hair that is a sign of impurity in a scall must appear only after the scall has already appeared or whether it can precede the scall.
  Yellow thin hair causes uncleanness whether it is clustered together or dispersed, whether it is encompassed or unencompassed, or whether it came after the scall or before it, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon says: it causes uncleanness only when it came after the scall.  The two yellow hairs that cause a scall to be unclean can either be clustered together, i.e. right next to each other, or they can be at opposite ends of the scall. They can be encompassed completely by the scall or they can be unencompassed, at its edges. According to Rabbi Judah, it doesn't matter whether they come before or after the scall. In all cases they are a sign of impurity. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that the hairs must appear after the scall.
  Rabbi Shimon said: Is it not logical: if white hair, against which other hair affords no protection, causes uncleanness only when it comes after the nega, how much more should yellow thin hair, against which other hair does afford protection, cause uncleanness only when it comes after the scall?  Rabbi Shimon now explains his logic. When it comes to the white hairs that are a sign of impurity in a regular nega, one that appears on the body, they cause uncleanness only if they appear after the nega. For these hairs the rule is more stringent no other hair will "afford protection" for them. This means that if black hairs are also there, the nega is still impure, as long as there are at least two white hairs. The rule with regard to yellow hairs is more lenient other hairs of other colors "afford protection" such that if there are two yellow hairs and two black hairs, the nega is pure. Therefore, the rule with regard to which comes first should also be lenient only if the scall precedes the yellow hairs should they be a sign of impurity.
  Rabbi Judah says: Whenever it was necessary to say, "it turns" Scripture says, "it turns." But the scall, since about it Scripture says, "there is no yellow hair in it," it causes uncleanness whether it came before or after it.  Rabbi Judah prefers a more literal reading of the verse. Leviticus 13:3 says, "and the hair in the nega turned white." Clearly, the nega precedes the white hairs. When it comes to the scall, the Torah doesn't use the word "turned yellow" rather it states, "and there is no yellow hair in it." This means that it doesn't matter whether the yellow hair came before or after the scall. We should note that these are two different ways of deriving halakhah. Rabbi Shimon employs a rabbinic type of argument. We know the halakhah in one situation (white hairs in a nega) and we compare them with yellow hairs in a scall. Rabbi Judah employs a more literal reading of the Torah. Indeed, this is typical of Rabbi Judah who is more often known as the literalist.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with Leviticus 13:37 which states, "But if the scall has remained unchanged in color, and black hair has grown in it, the scall is healed; he is clean."
  [Black hair] that sprouts up affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it was clustered together or dispersed, whether it was encompassed or unencompassed.  As we learned in yesterday's mishnah, if a black hair grows in the scall, he is pure. According to the rabbis this is true even if there is yellow hair or the scall spreads. This is true whether the black hairs were clustered together or dispersed, or whether they were totally encompassed by the scall or they were unencompassed and found at the edge of the scall. In all cases, if black hairs sprout up in the scall, he is pure.
  And that which is left [over from before the scall] affords protection against yellow hair and against a spreading, whether it is clustered together or dispersed, and also when encompassed, but it affords no protection where it is at the side unless it is distant from the standing hair by the place of two hairs.  This section deals with hairs that appear after the scall has already formed. These hairs were there and then remained when the rest of the hair on the head or beard fell out. Basically, the same laws that applied in section one apply here. This is implied explicitly Leviticus 13:31. The one difference between the two situations is when the two black hairs appear at the side. In this case they afford protection only if they are two hairs distance away from the hairs that already exist in the netek (the scall).
  If one hair was yellow and the other black, or if one was yellow and the other white, they afford no protection.  In order to afford protection from impurity there need to be two black hairs. If one hair is black and one is yellow, the scall is impure if there is a spreading or another yellow hair.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with yellow hair that exists before the scall.
  Yellow hair that preceded a scall is clean.  This opinion matches Rabbi Shimon's opinion in mishnah two. For the yellow hair to be a sign of uncleanness it must turn yellow or grow after the scall already exists. If it is there before, it is clean.
  Rabbi Judah says that it is unclean.  This matches Rabbi Judah's opinion in mishnah two. As long as there is yellow hair in the scall, it is a sign of impurity.
  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: it neither causes uncleanness nor does it afford protection.  Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that while yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of uncleanness, they do not afford protection. This means that if two yellow hairs sprout after the formation of the scall, the two that existed before the scall do not protect it from being impure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: anything in a scall that is not a sign of uncleanness is a sign of cleanness.  Rabbi Shimon agrees with the opinion in section one, and disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob. Since yellow hairs that precede the scall are not a sign of impurity, they do afford protection. If there are yellow hairs before the formation of the scall, the scall is pure even if subsequently other yellow hairs sprout.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  The first part of our mishnah deals with the obligation to shave the head or beard due to a scall. After a week of isolation, if no signs of impurity appear the person with the scall shaves his head and beard except for the place of the scall. This is stated in Leviticus 13:32-33:
  32 On the seventh day the priest shall examine the affection. If the scall has not spread and no yellow hair has appeared in it, and the scall does not appear to go deeper than the skin, 33 the person with the scall shall shave himself, but without shaving the scall; the priest shall isolate him for another seven days.
  As a reminder, the scall was located on a place from where the hairs had fallen out.
  How does one shave who has a scall? He shaves outside it and leaves next to it two hairs in order to determine whether it spreads.  When shaving at the end of the first week of isolation, he shaves around the scall and leaves the space of two hairs unshaven. If these two hairs fall out, it is a sign of spreading and he is impure.
  If he was certified unclean on account of yellow hair, and then the yellow hair disappeared and other yellow hair appeared, and so also if there was a spreading,   irrespective of whether the certification took place at the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, behold he remains as he was before.  In this case the person is certified unclean because of yellow hair. Then the yellow hair falls out and other yellow hair appears or the scall spreads. No matter when he was certified unclean at the outset or at any other time, once the new sign appears he becomes impure again without the priest declaring him impure again. This halakhah was taught with regard to a bright spot in 5:2.
  If he was certified unclean on account of a spreading, and the spreading disappeared and then reappeared, and so also if there was yellow hair, irrespective of whether the certification took place at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week or after his release from uncleanness, he remains as he was before.  Here he is declared unclean because the scall spread. This section is basically the same as section two, except since spreading is not a sign of impurity at the outset, he cannot be declared impure at the outset. See also 5:2.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  This mishnah deals with two scalls that are next to each other, with a line of hair separating the two of them. The mishnah is concerned with determining how to tell if one of the scalls has spread.
  Two scalls side by side and a line of hair separating between them: If a gap opened up in one place he is unclean, But if it opened up in two places he is clean.  If one gap opens up between the two scalls then we can say that one of the scalls spread and he is impure. However, if two gaps open up between them then we look at both scalls as having joined together. Since there are black hairs now within the scall, they prevent the person from being considered impure.
  How big should the gap be?  The space of two hairs.  The gap that opens up in the line of hair must be the size of two hairs for the two scalls to be considered as one.
  If there was a gap in one place, even though it is as big as a split bean, he is unclean.  This section is superfluous for we have already learned that if there is only one gap he is unclean. The section is here because of it is opposite of the last section in mishnah seven which we will learn tomorrow.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  Yesterday's mishnah dealt with two scalls next to each other but separated by a line of hair. Today's mishnah deals with two scalls where one surrounds the other, and there is a line of hair separating the inside one from the outside one.
  Two scalls one within the other and a line of hair separating between them: If there appeared a gap in one place the inner one is unclean, But if in two places it is clean.  If one gap opens up between the two scalls then the inner one is unclean because it is considered to have spread. The line of hairs adjacent to it does not afford protection because it is at the side of the inner scall. But the outer scall is not impure because there are two hairs which it surrounds. To reiterate: hairs which exist prior to the scall must be inside in order to afford protection (see mishnah three). If, however, there are two gaps, then both scalls are considered one and the black hairs afford protection
  How big must the gap be?  The space of two hairs.  Same as yesterday's mishnah.
  If there was a gap in one place of the size of a split bean he is clean.  If there is only one gap between them and the outer scall encompasses the inner one, then if the gap is the size of a split bean it causes the two scalls to be considered as one. The black hairs inside the scall mean that it is pure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  One who has a scall with yellow hair within it is unclean.  If one has a scall with a yellow hair in it, whether that yellow hair preceded the scall or developed after the scall, he is impure.
  If subsequently black hair grew in it, he is clean; even if the black hair disappeared again he remains clean.  Even if the black hair subsequently disappears, once he is pronounced clean he stays clean.
  Rabbi Shimon ben Judah says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: any scall that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean.  Rabbi Shimon ben Judah formulates a general principle that reflects what he believes the previous opinion had stated. Any scall that was unclean, whether because it had spread or because it had a yellow hair, and then became clean because the spreading disappeared or because the yellow hair disappeared, the scall can never become unclean again.
  Rabbi Shimon says: any yellow hair that has once been pronounced clean can never again be unclean.  Rabbi Shimon himself gives a more limited general rule. If the yellow hair was pronounced clean because of the black hair, that yellow hair can itself never serve as a sign of impurity. However, if yellow hair forms and then disappears, and then other yellow hair forms or the scall spreads, then the scall can again become impure.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  If one had a scall the size of a split bean and it spread over all his head he becomes clean.  Just as a body nega (a bright spot) that spreads over one's entire body becomes pure (see 8:1) so too a scall that spread all over one's head causes him to be pure.
  The head and the beard do not prevent [one another], the words of Rabbi Judah.  According to Rabbi Judah, if the scall spreads all over his head but not his beard, or all over his beard but not his head, he is pure. This is the meaning of "do not prevent" one doesn't need the scall to spread all over the other for him to be pure.
  Rabbi Shimon says: they do prevent. Rabbi Shimon said: Is there not a logical inference: if the skin of the face and the skin of the body, between which something intervenes, do prevent [one another], the head and the beard, between which nothing intervenes, should they not also prevent [one another]?  Rabbi Shimon holds that they do prevent one another from becoming pure. He now argues this out using a logical inference. The skin of the face and the skin of the body are separated by the head and beard. Nevertheless, if one has a nega on his entire body and it doesn't cover his face, or vice versa, he is still impure. This means that they do "prevent one another" they do prevent the other from causing him to be clean. All the more so, the head and the beard, two parts of the body with nothing in between them, should "prevent one another" from becoming pure if one and not the other is covered with a scall.
  The head and the beard do not combine, nor is a spreading from one to the other effective.  If there is a scall half the size of a split bean on the beard and an adjacent scall half the size of a split bean on the head, the two half-sized scalls do not combine to form one scall large enough to be impure. Similarly, if there is a scall on the beard and it spreads to the head or vice versa, this is not considered spreading and the person is not impure.
  What exactly counts as the beard? From the joint of the jaw to the thyroid cartilage.  This section gives the dimensions of what is considered the beard and what is considered the head. Obviously, to be able to determine the halakhah in the scenarios in sections 1-4 we would need to know exactly where the beard and head begin and end.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Mishnah Ten deals with negaim that appear in scalp or forehead baldness, mentioned in Leviticus 13:40-44:
  40 If a man loses the hair of his head and becomes bald, he is clean. 41 If he loses the hair on the front part of his head and becomes bald at the forehead, he is clean. 42 But if a white affection streaked with red appears on the bald part in the front or at the back of the head, it is a scaly eruption that is spreading over the bald part in the front or at the back of the head. 43 The priest shall examine him: if the swollen affection on the bald part in the front or at the back of his head is white streaked with red, like the leprosy of body skin in appearance, 44 the man is leprous; he is unclean. The priest shall pronounce him unclean; he has the affection on his head.
  These negaim appear in a place from which hair has already fallen out completely, whereas the scalls we have been talking about up until now appear in places with hair.
  Scalp baldness ( or forehead baldness ( may become unclean in two weeks and by two signs: by quick flesh or by spreading.  Scalp and forehead baldness have some of the same rules as negaim on the body. There is a two week period of isolation in which it is determined whether he is impure. The two signs of impurity are quick flesh and spreading. Yellow hair is not a sign of impurity because there is no hair in bald spots at all.
  What constitutes baldness? If one ate neshem or smeared himself with neshem or had a wound from which hair can no longer grow.  The mishnah asks what type of baldness is referred to here. In other words, what caused the hair on his scalp or forehead to fall out? The baldness is not natural baldness but baldness caused either by a drug (neshem) or by a wound.
  What is the extent of scalp baldness? From the crown sloping backwards to the protruding cartilage of the neck.  Scalp baldness is baldness on the back of the head. It begins at the crown of the head and slopes back to the neck.
  What is the extent of forehead baldness? From the crown sloping forwards to the region facing the hair above.  Forehead baldness slopes forward from the crown, meaning it is the front of the head.
  Scalp baldness and forehead baldness cannot be combined, nor is spreading from one to the other effective. Rabbi Judah says: if there is hair between them they cannot be combined, but if there is none they must be combined.  If there is a nega on the scalp that is half the size of a split bean and it is adjacent to a nega on the forehead also the size of half a split bean, they do not combine. Nor does spreading from one region to the other count as spreading. Rabbi Judah says that if a row of hair separates the scalp from the forehead, and then the hair falls out, then they can be combined or spread from one to the other. But as long as the hair separates them, they cannot be combined or spread from one to the other.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Up until now the Mishnah has been dealing with negaim that appear on the body. Chapter eleven deals with negaim that occur in clothing. This is addressed in Leviticus 13:47-59.
  All garments can contract the uncleanness of negaim except those of non-Jews.  The laws of negaim, including the laws concerning the negaim that appear on garments, apply only to Jews. However, they do apply to all Jews, women, men and children.
  One who buys garments [with signs of negaim] from non-Jews they must be inspected as if the signs had then first appeared.  If one buys a garment from a non-Jew, it now becomes a garment owned by a Jew (duh!). A nega that is already in it is treated as if it just appeared, and it must be inspected as would be any nega at the outset of its appearance.
  The hides [of animals] of the sea do not contract the uncleanness of negaim.  Leviticus 13:47-8 states: "When an eruptive affection occurs in a cloth of wool or linen fabric, in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool, or in a skin or in anything made of skin." Cloth (wool), linen and skin (animal) garments are clearly susceptible to negaim. Just as wool, linen and skins come from things grown on the land, so too anything "grown" on the land is susceptible to negaim. But hides made of animals of the sea, such as whale or dolphin, are not susceptible to negaim.
  If one joined to them anything which grows on land, even if it is only a thread or a cord, as long as it is something that is susceptible to uncleanness, they also become susceptible to uncleanness.  If one connected a piece of wool or linen that is susceptible to impurity, meaning it is large enough to be subject to the laws of impurity, the entire composite piece of clothing becomes susceptible. For instance, if I made a garment out of dolphin skin, but then I wanted to put a lining of wool in it, the entire garment would become susceptible to negaim.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah deals with cases where two types of wool or two flax and hemp have been hackled together to make one garment.
  Camel's wool and sheep's wool that have been hackled together: If the majority is camel's hair, they are not susceptible to negaim; But if the majority is sheep's wool they are susceptible to negaim. If it is half and half they are susceptible to negaim.  Camel's wool is not susceptible to negaim impurity because the "wool" mentioned in Leviticus is considered to be only sheep's wool. Therefore, if the majority of the garment is made of sheep's wool, or if even half of the garment is made of sheep's wool, it is susceptible to negaim. But if it is mostly camel's wool, it is not susceptible. We should note that in this case the camel and sheep's wool have been joined together so well that it is impossible to recognize which is which. This is what distinguishes this case from yesterday's mishnah, where a garment of wool or linen was attached to a garment made of skins of sea animals. In that case, since the garment of wool or linen was recognizable on its own, the entire garment became susceptible to impurity.
  And the same law applies also to linen and hemp that have been hackled together.  Linen (made from flax) and hemp are closely related, but only the former is susceptible to negaim (because it is mentioned specifically by the Torah). Therefore, the rules here are the same as above.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Colored hides and garments are not susceptible to negaim. Houses whether they are colored or not colored, are susceptible to negaim, the words of Rabbi Meir.  According to Rabbi Meir, hides and garments must be uncolored for them to be susceptible to negaim. Even if their color is natural, such as the hide of a tiger or some other colorful animal, clothing made of them is not susceptible to impurity. Houses (we shall learn about house impurity in the next chapter) on the other hand are different. They are susceptible whether they have been colored or not.
  Rabbi Judah says: hides are like houses.  Rabbi Judah says hides and houses are treated the same both are susceptible whether they are colored are not.
  Rabbi Shimon says: those that are naturally [colored] are susceptible to uncleanness but those that are artificially [dyed] are not susceptible to uncleanness.  Rabbi Shimon says that hides are susceptible if they are naturally colored, but they are not susceptible if their color is artificial, meaning they have been dyed. While the theoretical basis of this dispute is not explained, perhaps we could surmise that there is an issue of "nature" here. Wool and linen are naturally white (or dirty white). Therefore, if they are colored, they are removed from the realm of the natural and no longer susceptible to impurity. Human skin too is "natural" and therefore it is susceptible to impurity. In other words, human skin is the paradigm for the other types of negaim. In contrast to wool and linen, there is less of a "natural" color to houses, and therefore, they are susceptible to impurity even if they have been dyed or the material is naturally colored. In other words, nature plays no role here because they are far removed from nature anyway. The debate is over hides Rabbi Judah says that hides have no natural color, therefore they are like houses and are always susceptible.  Rabbi Shimon says that if the hide has a natural color, then it is of course "natural" and is susceptible. But if it has been artificially dyed, it is not susceptible, just like wool and cloth.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  The beginning of this mishnah continues to deal with garments that are colored, or at least partly colored.
  The second half deals with the spread of the nega within the garment.
  A garment whose warp was colored and whose woof was white, or whose woof was colored and whose warp was white, all depends on what is most visible.  The warp threads are those that are attached to the loom and run lengthwise. The yarn that is inserted is the woof. Whether or not the garment is considered to be "colored" does not depend specifically on which one is colored, but rather on whether or not the color is most visible. Albeck explains that when it comes to clothing, the woof is most noticeable, but when it comes to pillows, sheets and blankets, the warp is most visible.
  Garments contract uncleanness if they are an intense green or an intense red.  Leviticus 13:49 reads: "If the affection in the cloth or the skin, in the warp or the woof, or in any article of skin, is streaky green or red, it is an eruptive affection. It shall be shown to the priest." The rabbis interpret "streaky green or red" to be intense colors. For the nega found in the garment to be considered impure, it must be intensely red or green.
  If [the nega] was green and it spread out red, or if it was red and it spread out green, it is unclean.  Garment negaim are like skin negaim. At the outset they are isolated and if the nega spreads they are pronounced unclean. If the original color was red or green and the color of the spreading was different, it counts as spreading and it is unclean.
  If its color changed and then it spread, or if it changed and it did not spread, it is regarded as if it had not changed. Rabbi Judah says: let it be inspected as if it then appeared for the first time.  If the color of the nega changed before it spread, we regard it is as if it didn't change. Therefore, if it spread it is impure and the garment must be burned. If it didn't spread, the garment should be laundered and then isolated for another week to see if it spreads. Rabbi Judah says that if the color changes it is treated as if it was a new nega. Therefore, it would have to be laundered and isolated to see if it subsequently spreads.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  [A nega] that remained unchanged during the first week must be washed and isolated.  This halakhah is stated explicitly in Leviticus 13:53-54: "But if the priest sees that the affection in the cloth   whether in warp or in woof, or in any article of skin   has not spread, the priest shall order the affected article washed, and he shall isolate it for another seven days."
  One that remains unchanged during the second week must be burned.  If it is still there after the second week, the garment must be burned, as is stated in verse 55: "And if, after the affected article has been washed, the priest sees that the affection has not changed color and that it has not spread, it is unclean. It shall be consumed in fire; it is a fret, whether on its inner side or on its outer side."
  One that spread during the first or the second week must be burned.  If it spreads during either week, it is impure and must be burned, as it says: "If the affection has spread in the cloth   whether in the warp or the woof, or in the skin, for whatever purpose the skin may be used   the affection is a malignant eruption; it is unclean. The cloth   whether warp or woof in wool or linen, or any article of skin   in which the affection is found, shall be burned, for it is a malignant eruption; it shall be consumed in fire."
  If it becomes dimmer in the beginning: Rabbi Ishmael says: it should be washed and isolated. But the sages say: he is not required [to do so].  According to Rabbi Ishmael, if it becomes dimmer before it is even brought to the priest, it is treated as if it became dimmer at the end of the first week. In such a case he must wash the garment and isolate it for another week. But the sages say that since the color is already weaker than the required strong green or red, it need not even be isolated. It is pure.
  If the nega became dimmer during the first week it must be washed and isolated.  If it becomes dimmer during the first week of isolation, it should be washed and set aside for another week.
  If it became dimmer during the second week it must be torn out, and that which is torn out must be burnt, and it is necessary for a patch to be put on. Rabbi Nehemiah says: a patch is not necessary.  Leviticus 13:56 states, " But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof." According to the sages, if the spot fades during the second week, the faded spot must be torn out and then replaced by a patch. This way we can see if it appears again in the same place. Rabbi Nehemiah says that he need not put on a patch.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the reappearance of a nega in a patch that was put on a garment after the nega faded or the reappearance of the nega in the garment itself. The relevant verses are Leviticus 13:56-57:
  56 But if the priest sees that the affected part, after it has been washed, is faded, he shall tear it out from the cloth or skin, whether in the warp or in the woof; 57 and if it occurs again in the cloth   whether in warp or in woof   or in any article of skin, it is a wild growth; the affected article shall be consumed in fire.
  If the nega reappears on the garment, the patch is protected.  If the nega returns to the garment, the garment itself must be burned. This is stated explicitly in verse 57. However, the patch that was placed on the garment need not be burned.
  If it reappears on the patch the garment must be burned.  If the nega reappears on the patch, then the entire garment, including the patch, must be burned.
  One who makes a patch from a garment that was isolated and then pronounced pure, and then the nega reappeared on the garment, the patch must be burned.  In this case, a person makes a patch using cloth from a garment that had already been isolated because of another nega, and then had been declared pure. If the nega returns to the garment, the patch must also be burned. Just as one burns a garment if a nega returns to it after it has already been isolated, so too here one must burn the patch and the garment after the nega returns to it.
  If it reappeared on the patch, the first garment must be burned, and the patch serves the second garment while the two signs are under observation.  This section addresses the same situation as in section three, except here the nega returns to the patch and not the garment. The first garment, the one from which the patch had been taken, must be burned. Even though the nega returned to a piece of the garment that had already been removed, since the patch came from the original garment, the whole original garment must be burned. As far as the second garment goes, it will be isolated as if this was the first appearance of a nega in the garment. They will now wait to see if signs of impurity appear in the second garment. If they do, then the whole garment will be burned. If they do not, the garment is pure, although the patch must be burned in any case.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  A screen that had colored and white stripes, a nega may effectively spread from one to the other.  The screen has stripes that are white and colored. If the nega appears on the white stripe and then spreads to the colored stripe, the entire screen is impure. This is true even though colored garments are not susceptible to impurity.
  They asked Rabbi Eliezer: But the white stripe is separate? He replied: I have heard no ruling on this question. Rabbi Judah ben Batera said to him: Shall I derive the answer? He replied: If this would confirm the words of the sages, then yes! He said back: It is possible that it would remain on it in an unchanged condition for two weeks, and that which remains unchanged on garments for two weeks is unclean. He said to him: You are a great sage, for you have confirmed the words of the sages.  We now have a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Judah ben Batera. Rabbi Eliezer, as is well-known, is the arch-conservative, never wishing to say anything that he hadn't already heard from his teachers. He accepts the halakhah found in section one, but he doesn't really understand it. After all, the white stripe stands on its own, separate from the colored stripe. So how can spreading into the colored stripe cause the white stripe to be impure? Rabbi Eliezer gives Rabbi Judah permission to answer his question, but only if his answer supports the halakhah found in section one. Rabbi Judah ben Batera says that the garment is impure not because of the spreading to the colored stripe but rather because the whole garment could be impure if the nega stays on the white stripe for two weeks. When the sages said "it effectively spread from one to the other" they did not mean literally that it can spread. Rather, it spreads in the sense that if the white stripe is impure because the nega remained there for two weeks, the whole garment becomes impure, even the colored stripes. Rabbi Eliezer accepts the answer because it confirms that which the sages said, even though it effectively provides a different reason for why the garment is impure.
  A spreading that is close [to the original nega is effective] however small it may be. One that is distant [is effective only] if it is of the size of a split bean. And one that reappears [is effective only if it is] of the size of a split bean.  This section deals with how large the "spreading" must be. If the spreading is right next to the original nega, it can be any size and it will cause the garment to be impure. If the spreading is slightly removed, then the spreading must be the size of a split bean. And if a nega returns to a garment that has already been declared pure must be the size of a split bean for the garment to be made impure.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Our mishnah discusses at what point threads become susceptible to negaim.
  The warp and the woof can contract the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Judah says: the warp, only after it has been boiled, but the woof immediately.  Because Leviticus 13:48 states, "in the warp or in the woof of the linen or the wool," the rabbis rule that the threads of the warp and woof are susceptible to impurity as soon as they have been woven. Rabbi Judah says that the warp which consists of thinner strands, must be boiled before it is susceptible to negaim. The boiling was done to whiten the threads. The warp is susceptible immediately.
  And bundles of flax after they have been bleached.  After they would remove the flax from where it had been soaking to soften it, they would put it in the oven so that it would become white. Only then is the flax susceptible to negaim.
  How much must there be in a coil for it to be capable of contracting the uncleanness of negaim? Enough to weave from it a piece of three fingerbreadths square, either warp  or woof, even if it is all warp or all woof.  For the coil of strings to be susceptible to negaim there must be enough thread to make a garment that is three fingerbreadths square. Even if all of the threads are either warp or woof, as long as there is enough to make three fingerbreadths of cloth, it is susceptible.
  If it consisted of broken threads it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim. Rabbi Judah says: even if the thread was broken only in one place, and he knotted together, it does not contract the uncleanness of negaim.  If the bundle was made of broken threads, then it is not susceptible, assumedly because these are not so usable. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. Even if the thread was broken in only one place, and then it was tied back together, it is not susceptible.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  One who winds [a thread] from one coil to another, or from one spool to another, or from the upper beam to the lower beam, and so also in the case of the two sides of a shirt, if a nega appears on the one, the other remains clean.  If one winds a thread from one coil to another, and a nega appears on one coil, the other is still clean. The same is true if a thread connects two spools or the upper and lower beams of a loom. Shirts were made by sewing together two sides. If a thread connects the two sides, and one side is impure through a nega, the other side remains clean. In other words, in all of these cases, a thread does not serve to connect the two items at hand.
  If it appears on the shedded woof or on the standing warp, they become susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim immediately. Rabbi Shimon says: the warp may contract uncleanness only if it is closely ordered.  The "shedded woof" refers to the woof threads that have already been woven into the warp but have not yet been straightened and tightened together. The "standing warp" are the threads that lie on the loom and wait for the woof. According to the first opinion, these threads are now susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Shimon says that the threads must be closely ordered before they are susceptible to uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  [If a nega] appeared on the standing warp, the already woven cloth remains clean. If it appeared on the already woven cloth, the standing warp remains clean.  The standing warp refers to the threads that are still on the loom. If the nega appears there, only they are impure the cloth that has already been woven remains pure. The same is true in the opposite scenario if the nega appears on the cloth, the warp that is on the loom remains pure.
  If it appeared on a sheet, he must also burn the fringes. If it appeared on the fringes the sheet remains clean.  The fringes are the strings that protrude from the sheet. If the nega appears on the sheet, the fringes must be burned along with the sheet. However, the opposite is not true if the nega appears on the fringes, the sheet remains clean.
  A shirt on which a nega appeared affords protection to its hems, even though they are of purple wool.  If a shirt is impure because of a nega, the hems that are around the shirt remain clean, even if they are made of purple wool which is susceptible to impurity (although only because it is wool as we learned earlier, dyed clothing is not susceptible).
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Any object that is susceptible to corpse uncleanness, though not susceptible to midras uncleanness, is still susceptible to negaim uncleanness.  There are objects that are susceptible to corpse uncleanness, but not to midras uncleanness (the type of uncleanness conveyed by sitting, leaning or laying upon an object). For an item to be susceptible to nega uncleanness it need not be susceptible to midras uncleanness, meaning it need not be something that is meant to be sat, laid or leaned upon. It is sufficient for it to be susceptible to corpse uncleanness. Of course, this only refers to items made of wool or linen.
  For instance: the sail of a ship, a curtain, the forehead band of a hair-net, the wrappings of scrolls, a coiled belt, the straps of a shoe or sandal that are at least as wide as a split bean, Behold these are susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim.  This is a list of objects that are not subject to midras uncleanness and yet are subject to corpse uncleanness and therefore are also subject to nega uncleanness.
  A thick cloak on which a nega appeared: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: unless it appears on the texture and on the stuffing.  The thick cloak referred to here is made of wool and its inside is full of used pieces of cloth. Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says that for it to be unclean it must have a nega on both the inside stuffing and the outside.
  A skin bottle or a shepherd's leather wallet are inspected in the position in which they are used, and a nega may effectively spread from its inner side to its outer side and from its  outer side to its inner side.  One can inspect both a skin bottle (used to carry wine or water) and a shepherd's leather wallet (also used to carry water, see Kelim 24:1) without undoing the stitching. This is what it means that they are "inspected in the position in which they are used." And a nega that is originally found either inside or outside can effectively spread to the opposite side.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  If a garment that had been isolated was mixed up with others, all are clean.If it was cut up and made into shreds, it is clean, and benefit may be derived from it.But if a garment that had been certified unclean was mixed up with others, all are unclean.If it was cut up and made into shreds it also remains unclean and it is forbidden to have any benefit from it.Today's mishnah, the last mishnah about garment-negaim, deals with some differences in the status between a garment that has been isolated to see if an impure nega develops, and a garment that has already been declared impure.Section one:  The garment that was isolated is considered to be "doubtfully impure." And since we don't know which of the garments was the one that was isolated, they are all "doubly doubtful." And in cases of "double doubts" the law is lenient therefore all of the garments are pure. [We should note that the rabbis loved to talk about this subject cases where the status of something was doubtful].Section two: The garment that was isolated was then cut up into small pieces. These pieces are too small to become impure, therefore they are pure and benefit may be derived from them.Sections three and four: In these cases, the garment was certainly impure. Therefore, the law is the opposite. All of the mixed up garments are unclean and it would be forbidden to derive benefit from any of them.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  Chapter Twelve deals with negaim that are found in houses. This is referred to in Leviticus 14:33-53.
  The first mishnah of the chapter deals with which types of houses are susceptible to negaim. It is similar to the first mishnah of chapter eleven.
  All houses may contract negaim uncleanness, except those of non-Jews.  As was the case with garment-negaim, only houses owned by Jews are susceptible to negaim.
  If one bought houses from non-Jews, any it must be inspected as if they had then first appeared.  If a Jew buys a house from a non-Jew and it has a nega, the inspection procedure begins anew, as it would if the nega had just appeared.
  A round house, a triangular house, or a house built on a ship, on a raft or on four beams, is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness.  Only square houses that are built on the ground are susceptible to impurity. A "house built on beams" refers to a house that is built on beams that jut out from another building. Such a house does not directly rest on the ground and therefore is not susceptible to impurity.
  But if it was four-sided, even if it was built on four pillars, it is susceptible to uncleanness.  However, four-sided houses are susceptible even if they are built on pillars that come out of the ground. In other words, the house does not have to be built directly on the ground. It can be built on another structure (but not a building) that comes out of the ground.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  The last line of this mishnah is the key to understanding it for a house to be susceptible to impurity it must have stones, wood and earth. Based on partially on that principle, the mishnah lists what material must be in houses for it to be susceptible to nega impurity.
  A house, one of whose walls was covered with marble, with rock, with bricks or with earth, is pure.  The only building material that is susceptible to house negaim is: wood, stones (formed from rocks) and clumps of earth used to cement the parts together. Marble, rocks and bricks are not susceptible, and therefore even if only one of the walls is made from such material, the whole house is not susceptible.
  A house that did not have in it stones, wood or earth, and a nega appeared in it and  afterwards stones, wood and earth were brought into it, it remains clean.  If even one of the four walls of the house was originally made of material that was not susceptible to impurity and then a nega appeared, and then the susceptible material was added to the wall, the house remains pure. In other words, if the nega appeared in a house that was not susceptible, and then the house became susceptible, it remains pure.
  So also a garment in which there was no woven part that was three fingerbreadths square and a nega appeared in it and afterwards there was woven into it a piece of cloth three fingerbreadths square, it remains clean.  This is the same rule but in connection with a garment. A garment must be at least three fingerbreadths by three fingerbreadths to be susceptible to impurity. So if the nega appeared in the garment before it was large enough to be susceptible, it remains pure even if its size is increased. We should note that negaim are the one type of impurity that remain in/on something. All other impurity is contracted by some sort of contact with something from the outside world.
  A house does is not susceptible to negaim uncleanness unless there are in it stones, wood and earth.  This section is included here as an introduction to tomorrow's mishnah. So stay tuned!
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how large the nega must be for it to be a sign of impurity.
  And how many stones must there be in it [for it to be susceptible to negaim]? Rabbi Ishmael says: four. Rabbi Akiva says: eight.  Rabbi Ishmael says that there must be four stones in the house, at least one for each wall, in order for the house to be susceptible to impurity. Rabbi Akiva says that there must be two stones in each wall.
  For Rabbi Ishmael used to say: a nega is not a cause of uncleanness unless it appeared in the size of two split beans on two stones or on one stone.  Rabbi Ishmael says that the nega must be at least the size of two split beans, but it need not be in two stones. Since it is sufficient for the nega to be on one stone, each wall has to have only one stone for the house to be susceptible.
  Rabbi Akiva say: unless it appears in the size of two split beans on two stones, and not on one stone.  Rabbi Akiva says that the nega must appear on two stones. Therefore, there needs to be two stones in each wall.
  Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says: unless it appears in the size of two split  beans, on two stones, on two walls in a corner,  Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon says that the nega must appear on two stones, but each of the two stones must be on a different wall, such that the nega appears in the corner. If the nega appears on one stone on one wall, the house is still pure.
  Its length being that of two split beans and its breadth that of one split bean.  This section is everyone's opinion. All sages agree that the nega must be at least the length of two split beans (which according to my math, makes one full bean!) but that its breadth need only be one split bean.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with how much wood and earth must be in the wall for it to be susceptible to impurity.
  [And how much] wood [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Enough to be set under the lintel. Rabbi Judah says: it must suffice to make the support at the back of the lintel.  According to the first opinion, there needs to be enough wood on each house to be used under the lintel. The Rambam explains that this wood is used to support the stone lintel while it is being built. Rabbi Judah says that there must be enough to support the back of the lintel. This was used to keep the lintel straight.
  [And how much] earth [must be in the wall for it to susceptible]? Such as would suffice to fill up the space between one row of stones and another.  There also must be enough earth to fill up the space between two rows of stones.
  The walls of a cattle-trough or the walls of a partition are not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim.  The walls must be of living quarters for them to be susceptible to impurity. The walls of a cattle-trough used to feed cattle are not susceptible to negaim. Similarly, walls used to partition off rooms of a house are not susceptible.
  A house in Jerusalem or in any place outside the land of Israel is not susceptible to the uncleanness of negaim.  Leviticus 14:34 states, "In the land of your possession." According to the rabbis, this means that houses in Jerusalem, which was not part of any tribe's possession, are not susceptible. Houses outside the land of Israel are also not susceptible because they too are not part of Israel's ancestral possession.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Ostensibly, this mishnah deals with the procedure in which a house is inspected for negaim. However, most of the mishnah actually inteprets a few biblical verses that discuss this procedure.
  What is the procedure for the inspection of a house? "The owner of the house shall come and tell the priest, saying, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house" (Leviticus 14:35). Even if he is a learned sage and knows that it is definitely a nega, he may not speak with certainty saying, "A plague has appeared upon my house," but rather, "Something like a plague has appeared upon my house."  Leviticus 14:35 contains a curious phrase "Something like a plague" as opposed to simply "a plague." The mishnah emphasizes that this phrase must be recited. Even if the resident is a sage, and knows that what has appeared in his house is indeed a nega, he must still come to the priest and say "something like a plague."
  "The priest shall order the house cleared before the priest enters to examine the plague, so that nothing in the house may become unclean; after that the priest shall enter to examine the house." Even bundles of wood and even bundles of reeds [must be removed], the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Shimon said: clearing keeps him occupied.  The Torah dictates that everything must be cleared from the house before the priest examines it. This prevents anything in the house from becoming unclean. Rabbi Judah interprets since the Torah says that "everything" must be removed, even things that are not susceptible to impurity, like bundles of wood and reeds, must be cleared from the house. Rabbi Shimon says that there is no real reason to clear out bundles of wood and reeds from the house since they can't become impure. The purpose is not to protect their purity. Rather it is to keep the owner busy clearing out his house, for perhaps the nega will disappear while he is in the process of doing so. We can see here that the rabbis pick up on the cues that the Torah itself gives it is desirable to preserve the purity of the items in the house as much as possible.
  Rabbi Meir said: But which [of his goods] could become unclean? If you were to say, his articles of wood, of cloth or of metal, he could immerse them and they will become clean. What is it that the Torah has spared? His earthenware, even his cruse and his bucket. If the Torah thus spared a man's humble possessions, how much more so would it spare his cherished possessions! If for his material possessions, how much more so for the life of his sons and daughters! If for the possessions of a wicked man, how much more so for the possessions of a righteous one!  Rabbi Meir again asks what items is the Torah referring to when it says that everything must be cleared from the house? If it is anything made of wood, cloth or metal, even if it becomes impure, it can be cleansed by immersion in a mikveh. So what exactly is it that the Torah is protecting? The answer is that it is protecting earthenware vessels, which are the cheapest, most dispensable type of vessels. Now, if the Torah goes so far out of its way to protect such small, not particularly valuable items, all the more so the Torah is concerned with protecting a person from larger financial loss. And if the Torah is concerned with financial loss, all the more so it is concerned with the loss of life, which is obviously much more valuable. And according to the rabbis, negaim are a result of "lashon hara" the evil tongue. Negaim, according to rabbinic thought, afflict those who are morally corrupt. Nevertheless, the Torah offers protection to the afflicted person's possessions. And if the Torah protects the possessions of a wicked person, all the more so it will protect the possessions of a righteous person.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to deal with the procedure of inspecting and declaring impure a house in which a nega has been found.
  [The priest] must not go into his own house to isolate it, nor may he stand within the house in which there is a nega. Rather, he must stand at the door of the house in which is there is a nega, and isolate it from there, as it is said, "The priest shall come out of the house to the entrance of the house, and close up the house for seven days" (Leviticus 14:38).  The priest's pronunciation that the house should be isolated to see if the nega spreads is done from outside the house. This is stated quite clearly in Leviticus 14:38.
  He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the sign to see if it spread.  After the first week of isolation, the priest comes back to see if the nega spread or disappeared.
  "The priest shall order the stones with the plague in them to be pulled out and cast outside the city into an unclean place" (v. 40).  If the nega has spread, the priest orders the stones that have the plague on them to be removed and cast out of the city.
  "They shall take other stones and replace those stones with them, and take other dirt and plaster the house" (v. 42). He must not take stones from the one side and bring them to the other; nor earth from the one side and bring it to the other; nor lime from anywhere. He must not bring one stone to replace two, nor two to replace one. But he can bring two to replace two or to replace three or to replace four.  Then they replace the stones and plaster the house. The mishnah explains that these other stones must be from outside the house. Furthermore, since the Torah says that he should take "dirt" he may not use plaster in coating the house. He also can't bring one large stone to replace two, nor two smaller stones to replace one. However, he can bring two stones to replace three.
  From here they have said: Woe to the wicked, woe to his neighbor. Both must take out the stones, both must scrape the walls, and both must bring the new stones.  The Torah's verbs and nouns in this section are mostly in the plural. From here the rabbis learn that if a shared wall is contaminated with a nega, the neighbor on the opposite side of the wall must also remove the stones from his side of the wall, even though that side was not affected. There is also a moral lesson to be derived here. Since the rabbis believe that negaim come as a punishment for the evil tongue, they can add "woe to the neighbor" of such a person. Slander and gossip negatively affect one's community, and this is ritually symbolized by the requirement that the neighbor of a person affected by a nega must also remove his stones.
  He alone, however, brings the earth, as it is said, "And he shall take other coating and plaster the house."  His neighbor need not join with him in the plastering.  The verb for plastering the house is in the singular. Therefore, when it comes to that action, only the person whose house has been directly affected performs it.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  The last mishnah of chapter twelve concludes the discussion of the procedure of declaring a house unclean due to a nega.
  He comes again at the end of the week and inspects the nega.  After the end of the second week, the priest returns to the house to see if the nega has returned. Remember, the affected stones were removed at the end of the first week.
  If it has returned, "He shall break down the house, its stones, and its timber, and all the mortar of the house; and he shall carry them out of the city into an unclean place" (Leviticus 14:45).  If the nega has returned, then the whole house is condemned.
  A spreading that adjoins [the original nega] is effective however small it may be; One that is distant must be no less than the size of a split bean.  If at the end of the first week of isolation the nega has spread, the priest removes only the affected stones, as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. Here we learn that if it spread adjacent to the original nega, the spreading does not have to be of any minimum size. Any spreading is sufficient to mandate the removal of the stones. However, if the nega appears elsewhere in the house, the spreading must be the size of a split bean.
  And a nega that returns in houses must be no less than the size of two split  beans.  If after the originally affected stones are removed the nega returns (in the second week), the renewed nega must be the size of two split beans for there to be a requirement to tear down the entire house.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  I bet you are excited to learn that chapter thirteen continues to discuss negaim that afflict houses!
  This mishnah goes through the entire procedure of inspecting houses for a nega and categorizes them into ten different situations.
  There are ten [laws concerning the negaim in] houses:(1 + 2) If during the first week a nega became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and is then clean.  These are the first two laws concerning affected houses. If the nega grows fainter or disappears entirely during the first week, then all he must do is scrape the place where the nega was and the house is clean.
  (3 + 4) If during the second week it became faint or disappeared, it must be scraped and the owner must bring the birds.  If it grows faint or disappears after the second week, he needs to scrape the stones, but in this case he also has to bring bird sacrifice (see Leviticus 14:49).
  If it spread during the first week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (5) If it then returned the entire house must be pulled down; (6)If it did not return, the birds must be brought.  If it spread during the first week, he must remove the affected stones as we learned in yesterday's mishnah. If the nega returns, then the house must be torn down. This is situation 5. If it doesn't return, then he must still bring the bird sacrifices (situation 6).
  If it remained unchanged during the first week but spread during the second week, the stones must be taken out and the wall scraped and plastered, and another week must be allowed. (7) If it then returned, the house must be pulled down; (8) If it did not return the birds  must be brought.  This section addresses a scenario we have not yet talked about. If the nega doesn't spread during the first week, then he doesn't need to scrape the stones clean at the end of that week. The isolation continues and then it spreads during the second week. In this case, another week is given. Otherwise, this is the same as section three. We are now through 8 types.
  If it remained unchanged in both weeks, the stones must be taken out, and the wall scraped and plastered, and a week must be allowed. (9) If it then returned the house  must be pulled down; (10) If it did not return, the birds  must be brought.  Now we learn the rule if the nega remains unchanged through two full weeks. Although it did not spread, since it still remained, the affected stones are removed. Following this, the procedure is the same as above. If it returns, the house is torn down, if not only sacrificial birds must be brought.
  If before cleanness was attained through the birds a new nega appeared, the house must be pulled down; But if it appeared after cleanness through the birds had been attained, it must be inspected as if it had appeared for the first time.  If the house is clean but before sacrificial birds are brought a new nega appears, it counts as a return of the old nega and the house must be torn down. If however, the birds are sacrificed and then the nega appears, it counts as a new nega, and the whole procedure begins again.
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  In the case of a stone in a corner, when the stone is taken out it, he must take it all out; But when [the house is] torn down he tears down his own [part] and leaves that which belongs to his neighbor. Thus it follows that there is a greater stringency for taking out than for tearing down.  The stone at the corner of a wall is a large stone shared by two houses.  If one side is afflicted with a nega and he has to remove that stone only, he takes out both sides of the stone, even though the side that is in his neighbor's house does not have a nega. However, if the law mandates that his whole house be torn down, then he need not remove both sides of the stone. An explanation for this would seem to be that when the Torah mandates the removal of the stone, the whole stone must be removed. But if it mandates tearing down the house, only the house must be torn down. The side that is on his neighbor's side need not be torn down. We should note that this same rule applies to other stones shared by both houses. It only uses the example of the cornerstone because this would have been common.
  Rabbi Eliezer says: if a house is built of rows of head stones and small stones, and a nega appears on a head stone, all of it must be taken out; but if it appeared on the  small stones, he takes out his stones and leaves the others.  Albeck explains that the walls of their houses would have stones with "heads" that jut out on both sides of the wall. Between the "head stones" would be other stones that are also visible from both sides of the house. However, these stones would go into the wall and be subsumed inside the head stones. If the nega appears on the head stones, all of the stone must be removed. Similarly, if he has to tear down the house, all of the head stone must be torn down. However, if it occurs on one of the small stones, he only needs to remove his own side; the stone on the other person's side need not be removed.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  A house in which a nega appeared if it had an upper chamber above it, the beams are considered part of the upper chamber.  The beams referred to hold up the ceiling of the bottom floor, which is the floor of the upper story. If the nega appears in the lower story, he need not tear down these beams. Rather, he can leave them and prop them up temporarily in order to use them to rebuild the house.
  If the nega appeared in the upper chamber the beams are considered part of the lower room.  If the nega appeared in the upper chamber, he can consider the beams as part of the bottom story and leave them there. We see that the rule is lenient in both cases.
  If there was no upper chamber above it, its stones and wood and earth must be torn down with it. He may save the frames and the window lattices. Rabbi Judah says: a frame that is built over the house must be torn down with it.  This is the standard rule with regard to tearing down the house. He must tear down all of the stone, woods and earth parts of the house, even if they were not afflicted with a nega. In this case, because there is no upper chamber, the beams used as part of the ceiling can only be considered part of the house, therefore they too must be torn down. He may save the frames of the doors and the windows and the window lattices. Assumedly, he can use these in rebuilding the house. Rabbi Judah says that if there is a square frame that is built over the house, it is considered part of the house and it too must be torn down.
  Its stones and wood and earth convey uncleanness if they are of the minimum size of an olive. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma says: whatever their size.  The stone, wood and earth that have been removed from the house are ritually unclean. They convey uncleanness if there is a minimum amount the size of an olive, the typical amount required to convey ritual uncleanness. Rabbi Eliezer Hisma rules more stringently. It doesn't matter how little there is it ritually defiles even if there is the smallest amount.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the impurity of the afflicted house.
  A house that has been isolated conveys uncleanness from its inside;  Someone who touches the inside of a house that has been isolated is impure, even if he doesn't go into the house. However, if he touches the outside, he remains pure.
  And one that has been certified unclean, both from its inside and from its outside.  A house which is certified unclean also conveys uncleanness from its outside.
  Both convey uncleanness  if one enters in.  In both cases, if one enters the house he is unclean, even if he doesn't touch the walls of the house (see Leviticus 14:46).
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  If one who builds in cleanliness with stones from a house that was isolated and the nega returned to the [former] house, the stones must be taken out.  The stones were taken out of a house that was isolated and then used to build a clean house elsewhere. If the nega returns to the former house, the stones in the new house are still considered part of the afflicted house and therefore they must be removed from the new house and discarded.
  If it returned to the stones, the first house must be torn down, and the stones serve the second house while the signs are under observation.  If the nega reappears in the stones themselves, then the first house must still be torn down, as if the nega returned to the house itself. The second house now begins the process of a house afflicted by a nega. The stones remain in the house and they serve as the basis to see if the nega spreads at the end of the second week.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  If a house overshadowed a house with a nega and so also if a tree overshadowed a house with a nega, anyone who enters the outer [of the two] remains clean, the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah.  This mishnah discusses a house that overshadows another house with a nega or a tree that overshadows a house with a nega. According to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah one who enters the outer house or goes under the tree, meaning the structure that overshadows, is not impure.
  Rabbi Eliezer said:  if one stone of it causes uncleanness by entering, should not the house itself cause uncleanness by entering?  Rabbi Eliezer disagrees, drawing a sort of "a fortiori" argument. If the impurity of an afflicted house is strong enough that if one enters the house he is impure, then all the more so it should cause one who enters an "ohel," an overshadowing structure, to be impure.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  Introduction
  In yesterday's mishnah we discussed the topic of "overhanging (ohel)" in connection with a house that has a nega. Today's mishnah deals with impurity conveyed by overhanging in connection with a person that has a nega.
  If an unclean person stood under a tree and a clean person passed by, the latter becomes unclean.  The unclean person has a nega and has either been isolated or declared unclean. He stands under a tree and a clean person passes under the tree without stopping. Despite the fact that he didn't stop, the clean person is defiled.
  If a clean person stood under a tree and an unclean one passed by, the former remains clean.  However, if a clean person stands and the unclean person passes under the tree without stopping, the clean person remains clean. This is a special rule with regard to those who have a nega he only conveys impurity if he stops or sits under the ohel (the tree). See next section.
  If the latter stood still, the former becomes unclean.  As stated above, if the unclean person stands under the tree and the clean person is standing there at the same time, the uncleanness is conveyed to the clean person by the overshadowing tree. This halakhah is derived from Leviticus 13:46 which states, "Outside of the camp shall be his sitting place" according to rabbinici interpretation he must "sit" or at least stop moving, for him to convey uncleanness through overshadowing.
  Similarly in the case of a leprous stone he remains clean. But if it was set down he becomes unclean.  The same rules as above apply to a stone that has been removed from a building because it has a nega in it. If the stone is carried by a person who is moving, it does not convey uncleanness. But once it has been set down, it does convey uncleanness.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  If a person who was clean put his head and the greater part of his body inside an unclean house, he becomes unclean.  For the clean person to become unclean by entering a house afflicted with a nega he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.
  And if an unclean man put his head and the greater part of his body inside a clean house he causes it to be unclean.  Similarly, for an unclean person to defile the contents of a house through overshadowing, he must enter his head and the greater part of his body.
  If he put three fingerbreadths square of a clean cloak into an unclean house, the cloak becomes unclean;  A piece of cloth smaller than three by three fingerbreadths is not susceptible to impurity. Therefore, if he puts at least this much of a cloak into an impure house, it becomes impure.
  And if he put even the size of an olive of an unclean [cloak] into a clean house, the house becomes unclean.  However, to convey impurity the piece of cloth need not be three by three fingerbreadths a piece the size of an olive is sufficient. Therefore, all he has to do is put a piece of the impure cloak the size of an olive into the house and it will defile the contents through overhanging.
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah teaches that with regard to the time it take to become defiled there is a distinction between clothes carried into a house afflicted with a nega and clothes worn into such a house.
  If a person entered a house afflicted with a nega, carrying his clothes upon his shoulders, and his sandals and rings in his hands, both he and they become unclean immediately.  In this case, since he wasn't wearing the clothes, shoes or jewelry, they are considered to be vessels which are brought into a house. They become impure immediately upon entrance to the house.
  If, however, he was wearing his clothes and had his sandals on his feet and his rings on his hands, he becomes unclean immediately, but they remain clean, unless he stayed as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf of wheat bread and not of barley bread, while in a reclining posture and eating with some condiment.  However, if he is wearing his clothes, shoes or jewelry, they must be in the house for as long as it would take to eat half a loaf of wheat bread with some sort of condiment/dip, and while reclining (concerning this amount see Eruvin 8:2). This is derived from Leviticus 14:47 which states: "Whoever sleeps in the house must wash his clothes, and whoever eats in the house must wash his clothes." For his clothes to be impure he need not actually eat or sleep in the house. Rather he must be there long enough so that he could eat a minimum measure of a meal, which is considered to be half a loaf of bread.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  If he was standing inside, and he stretched his hands outside, with his rings on his hands, if he stayed [inside] as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf, they become unclean.If he was standing outside, stretching his hands inside, with his rings on his hands: Rabbi Judah says that they are unclean immediately, But the sages say: only after he leaves them there as much time as is required for the eating of half a loaf.They said to Rabbi Judah: if when all his body is unclean he does not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf, when all of his body is not unclean, is it not logical that he should not render that which is on him unclean unless he stayed there long enough to eat half a loaf?Today's mishnah continues yesterday's topic: how long does it take for things which he wears to become impure in a house afflicted by a nega.Section one: The person himself is impure immediately upon entering the house afflicted by the nega. The rings on his hands become impure even though they are outside the house. This is because his hands are part of his body and it is as if they are inside the house. However, the rings don't become impure until he stays in the house the amount of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. This is the same as the rule in yesterday's mishnah.Section two: In this case he stands outside and remains pure (because his head and body didn't enter the house see mishnah 8), but he stretches his hands inside while wearing his rings. Rabbi Judah says that this is like the situation of simply bringing rings into a house. As we saw in yesterday's mishnah, in such a case, the rings are impure immediately.The other rabbis hold that the rings must stay in the house for at least the length of time it takes to eat half a loaf of bread. They argue that in section one, where his entire body was impure, the rings had to stay on his fingers (although they were outside of the house) for at least that amount of time. All the more so, if his body remains pure, the rings must be in the house for at least the amount of time it takes to eat half of a loaf of bread.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  If a metzora entered a house all the vessels in it, even up to the roof beams, become unclean. Rabbi Shimon says: only up to a height of four cubits.  A "metzora" is a person who has a nega. If he/she should enter a house, all of the vessels in the house are defiled. According to the first opinion, this includes even vessels that are placed high in the house, close to the roof beams. Rabbi Shimon says that the impurity only reaches as high as the height of an average person when he stretches his hands up. This is estimated to be 4 cubits (about 2 meters high). Above that is another domain and therefore any vessels found close to the roof beams remain pure.
  Vessels become unclean immediately. Rabbi Judah says: only if the metzora stayed there as much time as is required for the lighting of a lamp.  According to the first opinion, as soon as a metzora enters a house, he immediately defiles all of the vessels therein. Rabbi Judah says that he must remain there the time that it takes to light a lamp. According to the Tosefta this only refers to a metzora who enters his friend's house without permission. In such a case, the vessels there are impure only if he stays long enough to light a lamp (at which point his friend, if he was there could tell him to leave?). But if a metzora enters his own house, or someone else's with permission, the vessels are defiled immediately.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of chapter thirteen continues to deal with the status of vessels in a house into which a metzora has entered.
  If he enters a synagogue, a partition ten handbreadths high and four cubits wide must be made for him.  If a metzora enters a synagogue, they must make for him a partition (a mehitzah) ten handbreadths high to keep him from defiling the other people in the synagogue. It is interesting how lenient this law is. The Torah states that a metzora should be sent out of the camp (see Leviticus 13). In contrast, the rabbis assume that a metzora could enter a synagogue and the only thing that needs to be done is for a partition to be made for him. Perhaps we can sense here some hesitance on the part of the rabbis to isolate a metzora from their community (even if these rules are only theoretical).
  He should enter first and come out last.  He should go in to the synagogue first so that he doesn't defile anybody before he arrives at his partitioned off spot. He should also go out last so that he doesn't defile anyone when leaving that spot.
  Any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection by a tightly fitting cover in the house of one afflicted by a nega, And whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega, the words of Rabbi Meir.  In Tractate Kelim we learned that there are vessels that protect their contents from becoming impure when found in a tent with a corpse if they have a tightly-fitting cover (see 10:1). According to Rabbi Meir these same vessels protect their contents from becoming impure in a metzora's house, as long as they have a tightly-fitting lid. And there are some cases where something needs only to be covered for it to protect its contents. It does not need a tightly-fitting lid. According to Rabbi Meir if something is protected by being covered in a tent of corpse, it is also protected by being covered in the house of a metzora. In short, the same rules that apply in the tent of a corpse apply in the house of a metzora.
  Rabbi Yose says:  any vessel that affords protection by having a tightly fitting cover in the tent of a corpse affords protection when covered in the house of one afflicted with a nega; and whatsoever affords protection when covered in the tent of  a corpse remains clean even when uncovered in a leprous house.  Rabbi Yose rules more leniently. If a vessel's contents are protected by a tightly-fitting lid in the tent of a corpse, they only need to be covered to afford protection in the house of a metzora. And if a vessel's contents are protected with any type of cover in the tent of corpse, then the vessel doesn't need to be covered at all for its contents to be protected in the house of a metzora. In other words, each rule is slightly more lenient in the house of a metzora than it is the tent of a corpse.
  
  
  
  
  
  Mishnah 1
  
  Introduction
  The final chapter of Negaim deals with the purification of the metzora.
  Today's mishnah is basically a summary of Leviticus 14:1-7:
  1 The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: 2 This shall be the ritual for a leper at the time that he is to be cleansed. When it has been reported to the priest, 3 the priest shall go outside the camp. If the priest sees that the leper has been healed of his scaly affection, 4 the priest shall order two live clean birds, cedar wood, crimson stuff, and hyssop to be brought for him who is to be cleansed. 5 The priest shall order one of the birds slaughtered over fresh water in an earthen vessel; 6 and he shall take the live bird, along with the cedar wood, the crimson stuff, and the hyssop, and dip them together with the live bird in the blood of the bird that was slaughtered over the fresh water. 7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open country.
  How would they purify a metzora?A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it.  The new vessel was used to ensure its purity.
  Two undomesticated birds are also brought.  The birds referred to in v. 4 must be wild birds.
  One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water.  See v. 5.
  A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence.  The bird was buried so that no one would eat it and no one would think that someone had eaten it. It is forbidden to derive benefit from this bird (see Temurah 7:4).
  Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead.  See v. 6. According to the rabbis, the live bird is not bound with the cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool. Rather, it is placed next to them. Then they are all dipped together into the blood of the live bird and sprinkled onto the metzora (v. 7). There is a dispute about whether the blood is sprinkled onto the back of his hand or onto his forehead.
  In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.  The same process is done for a house that has a nega (see Leviticus 14:51).
  
  Mishnah 2
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues with the purification process. It explains the verses from Leviticus where yesterday's mishnah left off (Leviticus 14:7-8).
  7 He shall then sprinkle it seven times on him who is to be cleansed of the eruption and cleanse him; and he shall set the live bird free in the open field. 8 The one to be cleansed shall wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water; then he shall be clean. After that he may enter the camp, but he must remain outside his tent seven days.
  He now comes to set free the living bird. He does not turn his face towards the sea or towards the city or towards the wilderness, for it is said, "But he shall let the living bird go out of the city into the open field" (Leviticus 14:53).  Leviticus 14:7 (quoted above) says only that the live bird should be set free in the open field. But 14:53, in connection with the purification of a house, states that the bird should be let out of the city into the open field. The rabbis take this to mean that the priest releasing the bird should look out into an open field, and not into a city, sea or wilderness (desert).
  He now comes to shave off the hair of the metzora. He passes a razor over the whole of his skin, and he [the metzora] washes his clothes and immerses himself.  See v. 8.
  He is then clean so far as to not convey uncleanness by entrance, but he still conveys uncleanness as does a sheretz.  The mishnah clarifies the level of his purity achieved at this point by the metzora. He no longer defiles in the same way that a metzora does by entering a building (see 13:7). However, he still defiles in a lesser way, by contact, as does one who has been defiled by contact with a sheretz (a creepy-crawly thing. See Kelim 1:1). He will achieve complete purity later on, as we shall see.
  He may enter within the walls [of Jerusalem], but must keep away from his house for seven days, and he is forbidden to have intercourse.  The "camp" referred to in Leviticus 14:8 is interpreted to be the walls of Jerusalem. He can now enter the "camp" but he cannot yet enter his own tent. The rabbis read the word "tent" in two ways: 1) he can't enter his home; 2) he can't have relations with his wife. This is not the only case in which the rabbis interpret "tent" to refer to a husband's sexual relations with his wife.
  
  Mishnah 3
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah describes the end of the purification process for the metzora. It explicates the following verses:
  9 On the seventh day he shall shave off all his hair   of head, beard, and eyebrows. When he has shaved off all his hair, he shall wash his clothes and bathe his body in water; then he shall be clean. 10 On the eighth day he shall take two male lambs without blemish, one ewe lamb in its first year without blemish, three-tenths of a measure of choice flour with oil mixed in for a meal offering, and one log of oil. 11 These shall be presented before the Lord, with the man to be cleansed, at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, by the priest who performs the cleansing. 12 The priest shall take one of the male lambs and offer it with the log of oil as a guilt offering, and he shall elevate them as an elevation offering before the Lord. 13 The lamb shall be slaughtered at the spot in the sacred area where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. For the guilt offering, like the sin offering, goes to the priest; it is most holy. 14 The priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and the priest shall put it on the ridge of the right ear of him who is being cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot. 15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil and pour it into the palm of his own left hand. 16 And the priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in the palm of his left hand and sprinkle some of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord. 17 Some of the oil left in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot   over the blood of the guilt offering. 18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed. Thus the priest shall make expiation for him before the Lord. 19 The priest shall then offer the sin offering and make expiation for the one being cleansed of his uncleanness. Last, the burnt offering shall be slaughtered, 20 and the priest shall offer the burnt offering and the meal offering on the altar, and the priest shall make expiation for him. Then he shall be clean.
  On the seventh day he shaves off his hair a second time in the manner of the first shaving, he washes his garments and immerses  himself.  As stated in verse 9.
  He is clean in so far as not to convey uncleanness as a sheretz, but he was still like a tevul yom.  He has now rid himself of impurity. His status is that of a "tevul yom." This is a person who has immersed in a mikveh but the sun has not yet set. While he doesn't defile anything, if he touches terumah or holy things (sacrifices) he disqualifies them (see Kelim 1:5).
  He may eat second tithe.  He may now eat second tithe. Note that anyone can eat first tithe, even one who is completely impure.
  After sunset he may eat terumah.  After the sun sets, he can eat terumah.
  After he had brought his offering of atonement, he may also eat sacred things.  After he brings his sacrifices (described at length in the Torah) he is now fully clean. This is stated in v. 20. He can now eat even sacrifices.
  Thus there are three grades in the  purification of a metzora and three grades in the purification of a woman after child birth.  We have now seen three stages of purity: 1) At the beginning of his purification process (mishnah 2), 2) after the second immersion (section two) and 3) after bringing his sacrifices. A woman after childbirth also has three stages of purification. The first is 7 days after the birth of a boy and 14 after the birth of a girl, the second is 40 days after the birth of a boy and 80 after a girl, and once she brings her sacrifices she is completely pure. See Leviticus 12:2-8.
  
  Mishnah 4
  
  There are three who must shave their hair, and their shaving of it is a commandment: the nazirite, the metzora, and the Levites.  The Torah commands three categories of people to shave their hair. The metzora, whom we have been discussing in the previous mishnayot. The Nazirite at the end of his term of naziriteship. See Numbers 6:18 and Mishnah Nazir 6:7. The Levites when they were first dedicated to service. See Numbers 8:7.
  If any of these cut their hair but not with a razor, or if they left even two remaining hairs, their act is of no validity.  They must all shave their hair with a razor and not cut it with scissors. And if even two hairs are left behind, they have not fulfilled the mitzvah.
  
  Mishnah 5
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah deals with the two birds that are brought by the metzora. One is slaughtered and its blood is spilled into a bucket and then sprinkled onto the metzora. The other is eventually set free.
  With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid.  Ab initio the two birds must be the same in appearance, size and price and they must be purchased at the same time. However, if the birds are different or not bought on the same day, they are still valid.
  If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten.  The birds are supposed to be wild. If after one has been slaughtered it turns out that it was not wild, he can buy a second bird to pair it up with the remaining bird. In other words although one of the birds was not valid, the second bird is still usable. Since the first bird was slaughtered in a kosher manner, it may be eaten.
  If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of.  Similarly, if the slaughtered bird was found to be a terefah, an animal with a physical flaw such that it is not kosher, they can still buy another bird to go along with the remaining bird. The bird that was already slaughtered can't be eaten because it's not kosher. But use can be made of it, as is always the case with regard to a terefah. In both of these cases, the second bird is still valid because it is retroactively determined that the first bird was not its proper pair. It is as if no first bird had yet even been bought.
  If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out.  If the blood of the slaughtered bird spilled out and didn't go into the earthenware vessel, the second bird cannot be used. This is because the first bird was a proper pair, its blood just wasn't dealt with correctly. The second bird must be left to die, because no benefit may be derived from it. Similarly, if the second bird dies after the first bird has already been slaughtered, the blood of the first bird cannot be used. It must be spilled out.
  
  Mishnah 6
  
  The mitzvah of the cedarwood is for it to be one cubit in length, and in thickness a quarter of that of the leg of a bed, when one leg is divided into two halves and these two into four.  The piece of cedarwood used in sprinkling the blood on the metzora must be one cubit long. It must be as thick as a quarter of the leg of a bed. It seems that people would know approximately how thick the leg of a bed is. The mishnah even describes actually dividing the leg of a bed into four parts in order to determine how thick the cedarwood can be.
  The mitzvah of the hyssop is that it should be neither ezovyon ( nor blue hyssop nor Roman hyssop nor wild hyssop nor any kind of hyssop that has an accompanying name.  The hyssop must be plain old hyssop (zatar in Arabic and by extension, modern Hebrew). Any hyssop that has an accompanying or modifying name should not be used.
  
  Mishnah 7
  
  On the eighth day he would bring three beasts: a sin-offering, a guilt-offering and a whole burnt-offering.  These are the sacrifices clearly outlined in Leviticus 14:10ff. The first section refers to the standard offering. A person who is not poor would bring two lambs and one ewe.
  And a poor man would bring a sin-offering of a bird and a burnt-offering of a bird.  The Torah states that a poor person can bring a sin-offering and a burnt-offering of a bird. The guilt-offering must still be a lamb.
  
  Mishnah 8
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah continues to describe the process of the metzora bringing his offerings.
  He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it.  The metzora first comes to his guilt-offering and lays his hands on it, as is done with most sacrifices. The guilt-offering is located at Nikanor's gate, as we will see in section six.
  He then slaughters it.  Either a priest or an Israelite can slaughter the offering.
  Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora.  The blood would then be drained out into two vessels held by priests (Israelites can't do this). The blood in one vessel is sprinkled onto the altar, which is the typical action with a guilt offering. The blood of the other vessel will be put onto the metzora, so the priest goes to the area where the metzora was standing.
  The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion.  While the sacrifice was being slaughtered and then its blood being received, the metzora would immerse himself in the chamber designated for the metzoraim. This was located in the Women's Court (see Middot 2:5). He would then come and stand at the Nikanor Gate which was on the eastern side of the Women's Court (see Middot 1:4). Tomorrow's mishnah will pick up with the continuing action. Rabbi Judah notes that he does not need to immerse because he immersed the previous evening (see mishnah three).
  
  Mishnah 9
  
  Introduction
  The blood of the guilt offering is now applied to the metzora's ear, thumb and big toe. However there is a problem the metzora can't enter the Israelite's court for someone who has not yet offered his obligatory sacrifices can't enter there (see Kelim 1:8). And the blood can't be brought out of the court. So how can the blood be applied to the metzora? Our mishnah answer this puzzle!
  [The metzora] put in his head inside and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the tip of his ear; [He put in] his hand and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the thumb of his hand. [He put in] his foot and [the priest] applied [the blood] to the big toe of his foot. Rabbi Judah says: he put in all three at the same time.  You put your ear in, you get the blood on [and you shake it all about]. Sorry, I couldn't help that one. Basically, the mishnah resolves the problem by saying that he can put parts of his body into the Temple courtyard without transgressing the prohibition of entering. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. He can put his ear, hand and foot in at the same time. Sounds a bit tough to me, but I guess it would save some time.
  If he had no thumb on his hand or no big toe on his foot or no right ear he could never become clean. Rabbi Eliezer says: [the blood] is applied to the place where they were. Rabbi Shimon says: if he applied it to the left side, the obligation has been fulfilled.  There are three opinions as to what to do if he is missing any of these appendages. According to the first opinion, he simply cannot perform the mitzvah and therefore he can never become fully clean. As unfair as this sounds, the author of this opinion would simply answer that the Torah demands that the conditions be fulfilled. If they cannot, then there is no way to cleanse the metzora. Rabbi Eliezer finds a solution in applying the blood to the place on the body where the ear, thumb or toe was (or at least should be). I don't know how this would work for a person whose entire arm or leg had been amputated. Rabbi Shimon says that he can apply the blood to the left side. This would only be a solution if the person had a left ear, thumb or big toe. It's unclear how Rabbi Shimon would rule if these were missing as well.
  
  Mishnah 10
  
  Introduction
  Today's mishnah explains the following verses from Leviticus 14:
  26 The priest shall then pour some of the oil into the palm of the priest's left hand, 27 and with the finger of his right hand the priest shall sprinkle some of the oil that is in the palm of his left hand seven times before the Lord. 28 Some of the oil in his palm shall be put by the priest on the ridge of the right ear of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord.
  [The priest] then took some [of the contents] of the log of oil and poured it into his colleague's hand; And if he poured it into his own hand, the obligation is fulfilled.  Verse 26 seems to imply that the priest should pour some oil onto another priest's hand. That is why the verse says "into the palm of the priest's left hand." The Torah would not repeat the word "priest" if it didn't mean another priest. However, since the word "priest" may refer to the original priest, the mishnah states that if he pours it into his own hand, he has fulfilled the obligation (this also seems to be the simple interpretation of the verse).
  He then dipped [his right forefinger] in the oil and sprinkled it seven times towards the Holy of Holies, dipping it for every sprinkling.  The mishnah clarifies that every time he sprinkles the oil, he dips his finger in his palm again.
  He then approached the metzora, to the same places that he applied the blood he now applied the oil, as it is said, "Over the same places as the blood of the guilt offering; 29 and what is left of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one being cleansed, to make expiation for him before the Lord." (Leviticus 14:28-29). If he "put upon," he has made atonement, but if he did not "put upon," he did not make atonement, the words of Rabbi Akiba. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: these are but the remainders of the mitzvah. Whether he "put upon" or did not "put upon," atonement is made, only it is accounted to him as if he did not make atonement.  See verse 28.
  If any oil was missing from the log before it was poured out it may be filled up again; if after it was poured out, other oil must be brought anew, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: if any oil was missing from the log before it was applied, it may be filled up; but if after it had been applied, other oil must be brought anew.  The end of verse 29 reads, "to make expiation for him before the Lord." According to Rabbi Akiva this means that if he doesn't put the oil on the meztora's head he has not fulfilled the mitzvah and the metzora has not achieved atonement. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri points to the word "and what is left" with which the sentence begins. Putting the oil on the metzora's head is only the "leftover" part of the mitzvah and atonement can be achieved even without doing so. However, if he doesn't fulfill this "remainder" part of the mitzvah, the verse treats him as if he didn't achieve atonement at all. In other words, he should put it on the metzora's head, but if he doesn't the metzora is atoned for.
  The priest takes from the log (a measure of oil) and pours it into his hand and then applies it to the metzora. The rabbis ask the question: up until what point must there be a full log of oil in the flask? According to Rabbi Akiva, as long as there is a full log before he pours it into his hand, he has fulfilled the mitzvah. If there is less after this point, he need not fill up the measure. Rabbi Shimon says that the full log must be there until he puts the oil onto the metzora. If the measure is diminished after this point, it need not be filled up.
  
  Mishnah 11
  
  Introduction
  The type of animal that the metzora brings for his guilt and whole burnt offering depend on whether he is rich or poor. If he is rich he brings lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds. Our mishnah discusses a situation where a person goes from being rich to poor or vice versa.
  If a metzora brought his sacrifice as a poor man and he became rich, or as a rich man and he became poor, all depends on the sin-offering, the words of Rabbi Shimon.  According to Rabbi Shimon, a person's status is determined at the time he offers to sin offering. If he was poor when he offered the bird as a sin offering and he gets rich, he can still bring a bird as the burnt offering. However, if he is rich when he offers the sin offering and then he becomes poor, he must still offer the lamb as his whole burnt offering.
  Rabbi Judah says: all depends on the guilt-offering.  The guilt offering must be a lamb, even if the metzora is poor. It is also the first of the offerings to be sacrificed. The status of the metzora is determined at this point if he is rich at this point, he must bring lambs and if he is poor he can bring birds.
  
  Mishnah 12
  
  A poor metzora who brought the sacrifice of a rich man has fulfilled his duty; But a rich metzora that brought the sacrifice of a poor man has not fulfilled his duty.  A poor person can bring a rich person's sacrifices, should he so desire, but a rich person cannot bring a poor person's sacrifice. In other words, the Torah allows one to bring birds if he can't afford to bring lambs. But the lambs are always acceptable.
  A man may bring a poor man's sacrifice for his son, his daughter, his slave or his female, and thereby enable them to eat of the offerings.  A householder can bring sacrifices on behalf of the members of his household, and thereby allow them to eat other offerings. A person can eat sacrificial offerings only once his proper sacrifices have been brought (i.e. those that end his status as metzora).
  Rabbi Judah says: for his wife also he must bring the sacrifice of a rich man; and the same applies to any other sacrifice to which she is liable.  Rabbi Judah notes that if a rich man brings sacrifices for his wife, he must bring the sacrifices of a rich man. This is true whether she needs to bring the sacrifices of a metzora, or other such sacrifices such as those a woman brings after childbirth.
  
  Mishnah 13
  
  Introduction
  The final mishnah of Negaim deals with one of the rabbis' favorite subjects what happens when different things of different categories are mixed up.
  If the sacrifices of two metzoraim were mixed up and after the sacrifice of one of them had been offered one of the metzoraim died: this is what the men of Alexandria asked of Rabbi Joshua.  Two rich metzoraim bring their sacrifices and one of them is offered. After this point one of the metzoraim dies. At some point the sacrifices get mixed up. If both metzoraim were alive we could sacrifice all of the animals and just declare that each sacrifice was on behalf of the one who brought it. But if one is dead, the animals of the person who died cannot be offered, because it is always prohibited to offer the sin-offering of someone who has died. The live metzora also can't simply bring new sacrifices because the sacrifice that was already offered may have been his own. In such a case, were he to bring a new sacrifice it would count as bringing non-sacred animals into the Temple Court, which is prohibited. The men of Alexandria asked Rabbi Joshua what to do in this situation.
  He answered them: let him assign his possessions to another person, and bring the poor man's sacrifice.  Rabbi Joshua said that what he should do is get rid of all of his property so that he becomes a poor man (hopefully the person he gives it to will give him his money back later). Now he can bring a new sin-offering, because he is a new person and he can bring a new offering. The sin-offering is brought as a doubtful offering, so it is not considered to be a non-sacred animal brought into the Temple Court. Congratulations! We have completed Tractate Negaim! As I always write, it is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. For me learning Negaim helped sort out those chapters in Leviticus that I've never understood all that well. What has fascinated me about Negaim is how much attention the rabbis pay to a subject that was not only not observed in their own time (this is true for large portions of Kodashim and Toharot) but may not have even been observed during the entire Second Temple period. The entire tractate did not contain even one historical memory of a person who actually had a nega. This just goes to show us that the rabbis main topic of interest is Torah and if something is covered extensively in the Torah, they will pay great attention to it, even if it had no practical implications upon their lives. Tomorrow our learning continues with Tractate Parah. Good luck to everyone and congratulations on your amazing commitment to learning.