A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 6: Negaim: Mishnah-Tosefta (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781597529303, 1597529303

Table of contents :
CONTENTS
PREFACE
TRANSLITERATIONS
NEGAIM CHAPTER ONE

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LA \YI OF PURITIES PART SIX

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES PART SIX

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF PURITIES BY

JACOB NEUSNER Professor of Religious Studies Brown University

PART SIX

NEGAIM MISHNAH-TOSEFTA

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene,Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, Part 6 Negaim: Mishnah-Tosefta By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1975 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-59752-930-3 ISBN 10: 1-59752-930-3 Publication date 3/19/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1975

For Arthur Hertzberg Scholar,Rabbi, andLeader infriendship

CONTENTS PART SIX

NEGAIM. MISHNAH-TOSEFTA Preface Abbreviations and Bibliography . Transliterations

I. Negaim Chapter One II. Negaim Chapter Two III. Negaim Chapter Three IV. Negaim Chapter Four V. Negaim Chapter Five VI. Negaim Chapter Six . Negaim Negaim Negaim Negaim Negaim

XI

XVI

1

Introduction

VII. VIII. IX. X. XI.

IX

Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter

Seven Eight Nine Ten Eleven

XII. Negaim Chapter Twelve XIII. Negaim Chapter Thirteen XIV. Negaim Chapter Fourteen

21 43 49 64 91 101 117 134 158 167 195 227 238 268

PREFACE Mishnah-Tosefta Negaim is a form- and literary-critic's delight. First, the tractate is rich in elegant and meticulously built formal constructions. Second, certain exegetical problems, originated by the established theory of non-repetitious, unitary, and wholly harmonious pericopae, turn out to yield quite novel solutions when analyzed in accord with the differing presuppositions of literary-critical and formcritical inquiry. In such cases I have given both the inherited interpretation as well as my own. A third reason for the sheer pleasure of the present tractate is simply the mathematical order and architectonic logic of its laws. The givens -basic rules, various sorts of fixed relationships-generate pointed and purposeful problems, though none is so complex as those of Kelim Chapters Eight through Ten and Twenty-Five through TwentyEight, not to mention nearly the whole of Ohalot. But, unlike the preceding tractates, Negaim is consistent in its .precise unfolding of rules and, especially, of complicating factors in their interpretation. It has few of the lists and aimless catalogues of items which Kelim loves, and it also refrains from posing complicated theoretical problems pretty much for their own sake, so characteristic of Ohalot (e.g., Chapters Nine and Ten). It further is better organized, more coherent and lucid as a whole than what has preceded. In all, it would be difficult to point to a more engaging tractate. In our studies of the first two tractates of Seder Tohorot, we devoted requisite attention to the pertinent pericopae of the compilations of legal exegeses known as Tannaitic Midrashim, primarily passages of Sifra for Kelim and Sifre Numbers and Sifre Zutta for Ohalot. Naturally, I assumed at the outset that I should cite the pertinent materials of Sifra Parashat Negaim and Parashat Me~orac right along with Mishnah-Tosefta of our present tractate. Naively, I even supposed that, in addition, it would be possible to lay out the literary and historical problems, all within a single book. A quick survey of the relevant materials of Sifra shows that an entire volume i,5 required even for a brief account of Sifra's materials on Negaim. Accordingly, what I had hoped would be a single volume on Negaim now turns out to be three, the present one, limited to a commentary on MishnahTosefta Negaim, the next, VII. Negaim. Sifra, a brief presentation

X

PREFACE

of Sifra Parashat Negaim and Parashat Me~ora C, and, finally, Part VIII, Negaim. Literary and Historicctl Problems, which will follow in due course, and which will contain ind ices for the whole. I thank The John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for a research fellowship in the calendar year 1974 and Brown University for an extraordinary research leave in the same period, during which T was able to accomplish the research for the present part of the project. I am grateful to E. J. Brill for the continuing commitment to the publication of my research. My gratitude to my colleagues and students at Brown University, as well as to my former students, who take time out to read my manuscripts and criticize them, to my teacher, Morton Smith, and to many dear fiaz;erim in research, first and foremost, Baruch A. Levine, is enduring. The work is dedicated to a friend who, in my mind, does what the rabbi of ancient times intended a rabbi to accomplish: scholarship in Judaism, leadership in the Jewish community, and public service. Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, author of major contributions to Jewish learning, University professor, rabbi of a flourishing congregation, and leader in important Jewish organizations, to my mind exemplifies for the present age the ideal of the rabbi, whose leadership is based upon learning, discernment, and foresight. The present studies on Negaim bring us to the mid-point in this History. Sixty-two chapters of Mishnah, with the whole correlative Toscfta, have now been analyzed, and sixty-four remain. When I began the project, the end of which I cannot now envision, it was not because of a predominant interest in the details of the Mishnaic laws of purities but because of a concern for certain experiments in problems of historical method, in another regard entirely. It quickly became clear, however, that careful exegesis and close dissection, then reconstruction, of texts and of the historical (sequential) and conceptional interrelationships of their laws constitute the sole reliable method for history and much else. Further, I found that the laws under study produced endlessly fascinating problems. I hope that the reader, following my commentary with the texts of Mishnah-Tosefta in hand, hopefully also consulting the great classical commentaries, will not find what I have done wholly worthless. If he or she is able to grasp the problems I raise and perceive the urgency of the critical agendum I have shaped, then, whether or not my literary-critical, form-critical, exegetical, and historirnl answers are acceptable, I believe the work will have been worth what it has required. J.N.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE

-

Ah. Albeck

-

CAqiva Eger, 1761-1837. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). Ahilot H. Albeck, Seder T ohorot (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, 1958).

Ar.

-

CArakhin

Assemani A.Z.

_

See Sifra, Fink. CAvodah Zarah Bavli, Babylonian Talmud Bava) Batra:> Bava:> M~ica:> Bava:> Qamma:> Berakhot Be~ah Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. VI. Order Taharoth (London, 1955). Joshua Brand, "He:>arot lel:ierse Arad," Sinai 72, 4-5, 1973, 259-263 H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Talmud (HaMishnah Ca/ pi Ketav-Yad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933). Dema:>i CEduyyot Hiddushe Eliyyahu MiGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887). CEruvin Gittin Elijah hen Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), for M., and from standard text of Tos. Tohorot in Babylonian Talmud, for Tos. Hon CAshir. Emanuel f_fai b. Abraham Riqi. In Qevu[at Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962), Vol. II. f_fagigah Hai Gaon, Perusp Ca/ Seder T ohorot (Berlin, 1856, reprint 1970). I;Iallah Efasde David. David Pardo, Sefer Efasde David, Part IV. Tosefet Merubah, vehu perush caJ haTosefta Seder T ohorot. I. Kelim, Ahilot. II. Negacim, Parah, Niddah (Jerusalem, 1970). See Sifra Hillel. David Hoffmann, Mischnaiot. VI. Ordnung Toharot. Punktiert, ins Deutsche ubersetzt, und erk/art (Wiesbaden, 1933). Sefer V ayyiqra. Commentary. By David $evi Hoffmann (translated into Hebrew by S. H. Shafer and A. Lieberman) (Jerusalem, 1954). Horayot

b. B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Bes. Bik. Blackman

-

Brand

-

C

-

Danby Dem. Ed. EG

-

Eruv. Git. GRA

-

HA

-

Hag. Hai

-

Hal.

-

-

HD

Hillel Hoffmann Hoffmann, Lev.

-

Hor.

-

XII

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hul. ID

-

Jastrow

-

K

-

Katsh

-

Katzenelson

-

Kel. Ker. Kil. Lieberman, TR

-

Lieberman, YK

-

M

-

M. MA (MiJhnah Alparonah) Ma. Ma. Er.

-

Maharam

-

Maimonides

-

Maimonides, Code

-

Mak. Me. Melamed

-

Men. Mid. Haggadol Lev.

-

Miq. MK

-

-

M.Q. M.S. MS

-

MT

-

-

l;Iullin Imre DaCat. Nathan Lieberman. In Qevurat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the T argumim, etc. (Reprint: N.Y. 1950). Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mischnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1968). Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishnah. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the SaltykovSchedrin Library in Leningrad (Jerusalem, 1970). J. L. Katzenelson, HaTalmud velpokhmat Harefu,ah (1928) pp. 304-353. Kelim Keritot KiJa,yim Saul Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim. A Commentary. Based on Manuscripts of the Tosefta and Works of the Rishonim and Midrashim and Rare Editions. III. Kelim-Niddah. IV. Mikwaoth-U ktzin (Jerusalem, 1939). Saul Lieberman[n}, HaY erushalmi Kifshuto (Jerusalem, 1934) Part I, Vol. 1. Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95). (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Mishnah. Ephraim Isaac of Premysla. Published in 1882. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. MaCaserot Mishnayot Macaseh Ereg-Pene Zaqqen. By Yi~!J.aqYehudah Ye!J.iel Safrin (Levov-Lemberg, 1862). Vol. VI. Professor Baruch M. Bokser kindly supplied this commentary. Meir hen Barukh of Rothenberg ( 1215-1293). For source, see Sens. Mishnah Cim Perush Rabbenu Moshe hen Maimon. Trans. Joseph David Qappa!J..Vil. Seder '[ohorot (Jerusalem, 1968). The Code of Maimonides. Book Ten. The Book of Cleanness, trans. Herbert Danby (New Haven, 1954). Treatise One: Corpse-Uncleanness, pp. 1-94. Makshirin MeCiJah E. Z. Melamed, Hayyaf;as sheben midrashe halakhah lamishnah velatosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). Menagot Midrash Haggadol. Leviticus. Ed. by E. N. Rabinowitz (N.Y., 1932). Miqva'ot Mar-eh Kohen, Petil;iah leMassekhet NegaCim. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm, Vilna, 1887. MoCed Qatan Macaser Sheni Melekhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-1625. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mayim Ta!J.orim.Judah Leh Edel Halevi of Bialystok, 5577 [= 1817}. From reprint of Mishnah in Babylonian Talmud.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

N

=

Naz. Nid. Nusaf?

-

Oh. p

-

Pa Par. PB

-

Pes. Preuss QA

_ -

Qid. QS

-

Rabad Rabad, Sifra

-

Rappaport

-

R.H. Rosh RSS Sanh. ~arfatti

-

Sens

-

Shah. Shav. Shev. Sifra, Fink.

-

Sifra, Hillel

-

Sifra, ed. Weiss Slotki

-

Sot. ST

-

Strashun

-

XIII

Mishnah c;m Perush HaRambam. Defus Rishon Napoli [5] 252 (1492) (Jerusalem, 1970). Nazir Niddah Y. N. Epstein, Mavo leNusap haMishnah (Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, 19542). Ohalot Shishah Sidre Mishnah. Ketav Yad Parma DeRossi 138 (Jerusalem, 1970). Mishnah Ketav Yad Paris. Paris 328-329 (Jerusalem, 1973). Parah Mishnah Codex Parma "B" DeRossi 497. Seder Teharoth. Introduction by M. Bar Asher (Jerusalem 1971). Pesahim Juli~s Preuss, Biblisch-Talmudische Medizin (Berlin, 1923). Qorban Aharon. Aaron Ibn I;Iayyim (d. 1632). Qorban Aharon. Perush LaSefer Sifra (Dessau, 1749). Supplied by Dr. Charles Berlin. Qiddushin Qol Sofer. I;Iaim Sofer. From Qevufat Meforshe HaMishnah (Jerusalem, 1962) Vol. VI. SuperBL. And, of course, M.'s final clause, H, lies behind T. 1 :15. To put it differently, the history of the formation of M. was complete before the commencement of T. 's work on M. The authority behind T. has, I think, produced a superb comment on the difficult pericope in his hands. But the primitive rule given by M. is simply D, "they do not examine hvo plagues at one time," spelled out by DL E and F then carry the matter a step further. They do not examine two plagues at one time also means they do not examine two plagues in one mrm, thus E, "'they do not shut up one already shut up," and F follows. H adds, the same priest supervises the whole process. Somehow someone has introduced the stereotype, in the beginning. at the end of a week, joined it to the whole with :>BL,but, and to make the relationship of E-F to D clear, has also told us, "whether in one man or in two men." Confronted by this problem, T.'s author set matters straight. A. A priest who examined him in the first instance, he is subject to him at the end of the first week. [If) he examined him at the end of the first week, he is subj cct to him at the end of the second week. [If) he is subject to him at the end of the second week, he is subject to him at the end of the third week. B. If he died or fell ill, another priest is subject to him, and he may not say to him, "Go and come back." But he is subject to him forthwith [ for the required examination}. T. 1:15 (Tos. W & R p. 151, ls. 23-24, p. 152, ls. 1-3) \\7 c have already seen Maimonides' version of this rule, the rule of A. He gives Bas follows (Uncle,mness of Leprosy 9:11): ''If a man having a leprosy sign comes to a priest to be inspected, the priest may not say to him, 'Go away and come again,' but he must forthwith concern himself with him ... .''

58

NEGAIM CHAPTER THREE 3: 1-8

A. A priest who declared a clean person to be unclean or declared the unclean person to be clean, and [the spot indeed} is subject to it at the end of the first week, even though he declared the unclean to be unclean and declared the clean to be dean, has done nothing at all. B. In respect to the uncleanness, it says, "He is unclean, and the priest has declared him unclean," and in respect to cleanness it says, "He is clean, and the priest declares him dean." C. This is one of the things concerning which Hillel came up from Babylonia. T. 1:16 (Tos. W & R p. 152, ls. 4-8)

Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 9:3) omits "and is subject to him .... " He cites Lev. 13:44, He is unclean and the priest shalt pronounce him unclean, and its counterpart at Lev. 13:37. But the point of and is subject to it, Lieberman explains (TR III, p. 167) is that even though at the end of the week the plague appears just as the priest has declared, since in the first place the priest did not declare it unclean in the appropriate way, his declaration, Unclean, bears no consequences. The man is clean. I do not know why C is tacked on. 3:2 A. A bridegroom on whom a plague appearedthey give him the seven days of the marriage-feast [before inspecting him]B. him, and his house, and his garment. C. And so with respect to the festival: they give him [ one on whom a bright spot appears] all the days of the festival [before he is subjected to inspection]. M. 3:2 (b. M.Q. 7b, b. Bekh. 34b)

B expands A, and C extends the rule, all in declarative sentences. 3:3-8 A. The skin of the flesh [the bright spot or swelling] is made unclean within two weeks and by three tokens. With white hair, and with quick flesh, and with spreading. B. With white hair and with quick fleshC. in the beginning, or by the end of the first week, or by the end of the second week, after the [ declaration of} clearance. D. And by spreadingE. at the end of the first week, and at the end of the second week, after the clearance. F. And it is made unclean within two weeksG. which are thirteen days. M. 3:3

NEGAIM CHAPTER THREE

3:3-8

59

A. The boil and the burning are made unclean in one week and with two tokens. With white hair and spreading. B. With white hairC. in the beginning, at the end of the first week, after the clearance. D. And with spreadingE. at the end of a week, after the clearance. F. And they are made unclean within one weekG. which are seven days. M. 3:4 (b. Hul. Sa) [A = M. 9:1) A. The scalls are made unclean in two weeks and with two signs. With gold, thin hair, and with spreading. B. With gold, thin hairC. in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearance. D. And with spreadingE. at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearance. F. And they are made unclean within two weeksG. which are thirteen days. M. 3:5 [ = M. 10:1) A. The scalp-baldness and forehead baldness are made unclean in two weeks and with two signs. With quick flesh and with spreading. B. With quick fleshC. at the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearance. D. And with spreadingE. at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearance. F. And they are made unclean within two weeksG. which are thirteen days. M. 3:6 [A = M. 10:10) A. Clothes are made unclean in two weeks, and with three signs. With a greenish color, and with a reddish color, and with spreading. B. With a greenish color and with a reddish colorC. in the beginning, at the end of the first week, and at the end of the second week, after the clearance. D. And with spreadingE. at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearance. F. And they are made unclean within two weeksG. which are thirteen days. M. 3:7

60

NEG AIM CHAPTER THREE

3: 3-8

A. The houses are made unclean in three weeks and with three signs. With a greenish color and with a reddish color and with spreading. B. With a greenish color and with a reddish colorC. in the beginning, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, after the clearance. D. And with spreadingE. at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, at the end of the third week, after the clearance. F. And they are made unclean within three weeksG. which are nineteen days. H. Among plagues is none [which is shut up J less than one week [ = M. 3: 3} and none more than three weeks. M. 3:8 (b. Ar. Sb)

Let us first analyze the development of the formal model and its use in the redaction of the tractate as a whole, then consider the laws before us. Since M. 3:4A recurs at M. 9:1, M. 3:5A at M. 10:1, and M. 3:6 at M. 10:10, we are on firm ground in supposing that primary to each construction is solely A: ( 1) the thing which is made unclean, ( 2) specification of the period of susceptibility, ( 3) specification of the number of the tokens of uncleanness, and ( 4) definition of those tokens. At first glance, one might suppose the definition ( 4) is the beginning of a development over the primary tradition ( 1-3). But M. 9:1, 10:1, and M. 10:10 treat the definition as integral. What they do not cite is B-F. And why should they, for B in each instance repeats the definition of the tokens of uncleanness, and C then spells out the specification of the period of susceptibility. If we are given two weeks, then, as in M. 3:3C, we are told how these two weeks are going to be divided, e.g., M. 3:3C, an inspection in the beginning, then at the end of the first week, then at the end of the second week, and, finally, after that point. D then picks up the inspection of spreading, in all instances omitting in the beginning. And F in all cases tells us the number of days covered by the specified weeks. So everything beyond A is simply meant to gloss the several items of A, one by one. The original construction therefore consisted of M. 3: 3A, 3:4A, 3:5A, 3:6A, 3:7A, and 3:8A. The alternative mode of introducing a sub-tractate on a type of plague is the KL-construction, used at M. 2: 5 for the generality of inspections, M. 3: 1 for susceptibility to plagues in general ( and its developments), M. 5:1 for dubious plagues (repeated at M. 5:4), and then, most interestingly, at M. 11 :1 to introduce the sub-tractate

NEGAIM CHAPTER THREE

3:3-8

61

on garments, and M. 12:1, on houses. Since the redactor of the final construction for garments and houses has used the KL-construction, he also ignores M. 3:7 and M. 3:8. And vice versa, since the same work on the boil and burning, M. 3:4, scalls, M. 3:5, and scalp- and fore-head baldness, M. 3:6, depends upon our present construction, the KL-construction is ignored. Clearly, the introduction to the sub-tractate on bright spots on the skin of the flesh is intended to be M. 3: 3; then the sub-tractate resumes at M. 4:1 and continues through M. 8:10, which, in its curious way, brings us back to M. 1 :4-6. What has happened is that the redactor of the sub-tractate on bright spots on the skin of the flesh has used a complete unit of tradition, covering the subject-matter of the entire tractate, M. 3:3-8. He did not find it necessary to repeat M. 3:3, or to resort to a KL-construction, when organizing the remainder of the sub-tractate. Then each of the following sub-tractates, beginning at the specified places, has either resumed the original introductory construction, M. 3:4, 5, and 6, or replaced it with an alternative introduction, one based upon KL. M. 3:l's KL-materials are meant to apply to the entire set of subtractates which follow, and I am inclined to see M. 2:5, as noted above, as the beginning of the work. In all, one could hardly improve upon M. 3: 3-8 as a framework for the tractate as a whole. I do not know why the redaction of sub-tractates on clothing and houses did not resort to the available, elegant structure. As noted, M. 3: 3-3 :8 follow a remarkably simple construction. We have a set of six units, each stated within a single pattern: type of plague, period of quarantine, number of tokens of uncleanness. Each element then is expanded. We are told what the tokens are (B). Then come C-D, listing the points at which inspection is made for tokens other than spreading; then E-F, for spreading, the sole difference in each case being inspection at the very outset, which obviously does not apply to spreading. And at the end, G, the reference to the period of quarantine is spelled out in terms of the number of days; the pattern again is simple. The first week involves seven days, if we have a two-week quarantine, it lasts for thirteen days, and for a three-week period, nineteen days. The last day of the first week counts as the first of the second, and so on. It would be difficult to present a better example of the construction of laws in a single, well disciplined pattern. In the present case we do not have a single extraneous gloss or interpolation, only the very

62

NEGAIM CHAPTER THREE

3:3-8

concluding sentence, at M. 3:SH, which seals M. 3:8 and, by its variation of the pattern, also announces the completion of the construction. If we now list the items in accord with the pertinent Scriptures, we see the following: 3:3: Skin of the flesh 3:4: Boil or burning 3: 5: Itches or scalls 3:6: Scalp-baldness, forehead baldness 3:7: Clothing 3:8: House

Lev. Lev. Lev. Lev. Lev. Lev.

13:2 13:19 and 13:24 13:29 13:40 13:47 14:33

In other words, what we have is a little summary of all the pertinent items of Scripture, with a systematic account of the Scriptural rules as to the tokens of uncleanness and the period of quarantine. The complex improves upon Scripture in one way only: it is brief and mnemonically well constructed. To put it differently, if I had to cite a pericope apt to have been particularly useful in priestly schools for the teaching of young priests, this would be a prime candidate. The Scriptural origins of the several rules appear to be as follows: 3:3 Skin of flesh: White hair: Lev. 13:3 Quick flesh: Lev. 13:10 Spreading: Lev. 13:5 Three inspection ( two weeks) : Lev. 13:3, 13:5, 13:6 Boil 3:4 Burning White hair: Lev. 13:25 Lev. 13:20 Spreading: Lev. 13:27 Lev. 13:22 Two inspections (one week): Lev. 13:25, 27 Lev. 13:19, 21 3:5 Itches or scalls Hair: Lev. 13:30 Spreading: Lev. 13:32 Three inspection ( two weeks) : Lev. 13:30, 31-2, 33 3:6 Scalp-baldness and forehead-baldness Quick flesh: Lev. 13:40 Spreading: ? Three inspections ( two weeks) : ? 3:7 Clothes Red color: Lev. 13:49 Green color: Lev. 13:49 Spreading: Lev. 13:51 Three inspections (two weeks): Lev. 13:49, 51, 54

NEGAIM CHAPTER THREE

3:8 Houses Red color: Green color: Spreading: Four Inspections ( three weeks):

3: 3-8

63

Lev. 14:37 Lev. 14:37 Lev. 14:39 37, 39, Lev. 14:35 43 + 44, 48(?)

+

Only at M. 3:6 and 3:8 will we require an exegetical link of any sort between Scripture and Mishnah.

CHAPTER FOUR

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR We proceed to the analysis of the bright spot, that is, the first item in the construction of M. 3:3-8. Having spoken of "skin of the flesh," called by M. ''the bright spot," which is marked unclean by white hair, quick flesh, and spreading, we now compare the three tokens of contamination to one another. M. 4:1-3 form another large and tightly organized construction, meant to compare white hair to spreading, M. 4:1, then quick flesh to spreading, M. 4:2, and finally white hair to quick flesh, M. 4:3. Each pericope is carefully balanced against the others, and the whole, as in M. 3:3-8, is articulated with the greatest formal precision. We should hardly be surprised to discover not a single attestation, let alone an attribution. The tight forms before us leave no room for attributed sayings. Where we do have them, they will be obvious glosses, on the one hand, or part of a wholly separate dispute, inserted as a unit, on the other. The architectonically perfect triad of M. 4:1-3 tells us a strict rule applying to one item which does not pertain to the second, and the self-evident purpose is further to spell out the rules of contamination. M. 4:4A-I present an Ushan construction of special problems presented by those hairs. We now find a new form, one which will predominate hereafter, namely, the statement of a problem or generalized case in apocopation. In each case, we have the subject, e.g., two hairs, then the problem, e.g., their root is black and their head is white, then the decision, depending upon the foregoing definition of the problem, but apocopated from it in syntax, e.g., he is clean. M. 4:4A-E, two such items, are tl).en glossed by a dispute of Meir and Simeon, and concluded with an excellent rule in the model of the first two problems, three laws in all. M. 4:4J-M inaugurate still another major construction, which continues through M. 4:11. What links the whole is the topic-clause, a bright spot, and the entire construction addresses itself to a wide range of problems concerning bright spots. There are fifteen problems in all, each signified by a Roman numeral, in bold-face type, at the left hand margin. These problems are not linked by a single principle or issue; the connection is formal, therefore all the more impressive.

65

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

Indeed, the construction of vast collections around a single formal trait is herein beautifully illustrated. For we are able to see how antecedent materials, deriving from different redactional circles, earlier and later, have been put together in stylistic harmony, in a final revision of the whole, for the purpose of ultimate redaction. The bright-spot-construction, M. 4:4J through M. 4:11, links the following discrete items: I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII.

VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV.

Bright spot-white hair, black hair Bright spot-streak Two bright spots-streak between them Bright spot the size of a split bean, quick flesh the size of a lentil + hair Bright spot and quick flesh together the size of a split bean + hair Bright spot and quick flesh spreading contraction spreading (M. 4:71 seems the Bright spot best exemplum) Bright spot the size of a split bean spreading spreading Bright spot the size of a split bean Bright spot the size of a split bean + spreading Bright spot the size of a split bean spreading Bright spot the size of a half split bean + no token of uncleanness + spreading hair Bright spot the size of a half split bean two hairs Bright spot the size of a half split bean no token of uncleanBright spot the size of a half split bean spreading hair ness

+ +

+

+ +

+

+

+

+ + +

The attributions and attestations for the bright-spot-construction are as follows: M. 4:4J-M, attested by Yose at T. 2:3; M. 4:5, attested by Eleazar b. R. Simeon at T. 2:4; M. 4:6, well attested by sayings attributed to Simeon; M. 4:7, the beginning of an cAqivan sub-unit, with an attribution of a dispute to cAqiva and sages; M. 4:8, cAqivan; M. 4:lOA-F, cAqivan; M. 4:l0G-U, no attribution or attestation; M. 4:11, glossed by Joshua. T. 2:7F has Leazar b. R. Simeon differ from M. 4:lOF. Accordingly, we have three subdivisions in the bright-spot-construction, an Ushan group, then a Yavnean group, and finally, a set lacking attributions and attestations. We may take for granted that redactors in the period after the named Ushans have given us the unitary formulary patterns characteristic of the whole, basing their work upon already available materials. 5

66

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-3

4:1-3 A. There are [ strict rules applying] to white hair which do not [ apply J to spreading, and there are [ rules applying] to spreading which do not [apply] to white hair. B. For white hair (1) renders unclean in the first [inspection], and (2) renders 1mclean in any appearance [shade] of whiteness, and (3) no token of cleanness applies to it. C. There are [ strict rules applying} to spreading, for the spreading ( 1) renders unclean in any size whatever, and (2) renders unclean in all plagues, (3) [though] outside the plague [itself], which is not the case for white hair [which must be encompassed by the bright spot]. M. 4:1 A. There are [ strict rules applying} to the quick flesh which do not apply to spreading, and there are [rules applying} to spreading which do not [apply} to quick flesh. B. For the quick flesh ( 1) renders unclean in the first [ inspection J, and ( 2) renders unclean in any appearance [color], and ( 3) no token of cleanness applies to it. C. There are '[ rules applying) to spreading, for the spreading ( 1) renders unclean in any size wh:ltever, and (2) renders unclean in all plagues, ( 3) [though J outside the plague, which is not the case with quick flesh. M. 4:2 A. There are [ strict rules applying} to white hair which do not [ apply J to quick flesh, and there are [ rules applying) to quick flesh which do not [apply] to white hair. B. For white hair (1) renders unclean in a boil or burning, (2) [whether} compacted [united} or dispersed, (3) encompassed or not encompassed. C. There are [ rules applying} to quick flesh, for the c1uick flesh (1) renders unclean in scalp-baldness or forehead-baldness, (2) whether it was turned or whether it was not turned ["whether the quick flesh came after, or whether the quick flesh came before," so Danby], and (3) hinders [cleanness] in him who has turned entirely white, and ( 4) renders unclean in any appearance, [ color}, which is not so for white hair. M. 4:3

M. 4:1-3 carry us back to M. '>:), the skin of the flesh is made unclean through three tokens: white hair, quick flesh, and spreading, etc. I do not see why equivalent constructions cannot have served all of M. 3:4-8, but we have none. If we follow the form of M. 4:1-_\ however, it would be rclafrvely simple to supply them, assuming that

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-3

67

the pertinent facts are in hand. Since M. 4:1-3 tell us little more than does Scripture, however, the facts presumably are in hand. The form is rigidly followed. First we have a general statement that there are rules applying to X which do not apply to Y, and vice versa. In all instances, B then tells us the three rules ( containing verbs) of X, and C the three rules ( containing verbs) of Y. B could as well end, ''which is not the case for Y," and C could as well begin, "applying to Y which do not apply to X." I assume that both are omitted because they are obvious, not that we have a defective construction throughout. M. 4:1 gives us three items at B, three at C, so too M. 4:2. C3 is autonomous, even without a verb. M. 4:3 then gives us three for B, as before, but four for C, rather than the expected three. It is the augmentation of the final item which normally will mark the completion of a major composite (as at M. 3:8 and as we shall note again at XVI in the vast construction formed by M. 4:4-11). The basic form wants to give us six items per unit, and the composite supplies a total of nineteen. Sixteen verbs ( major cases) would have been preferable, as in the Baheret-composite which follows; perhaps, as indicated, M. 4:3C3 is not to be counted as an autonomous unit, lacking a verb as it does. Let us now turn to the substance of the laws. M. 4:1 compares white hair to spreading, M. 4:2, quick flesh to spreading, and M. 4:3 white hair to quick flesh, a complete sequence. White hair in a bright spot means that we have uncleanness. If this is present at the first inspection, the man is declared unclean. But spreading is not discerned the first time around-by definition. White hair even dimmer than the four specified shades of whiteness-that is, darker than the skin of the egg-is a sign of uncleanness. But in spreading we require a color of flesh at least as bright as one of the four specified shades-a conception not based upon Scripture. If the entire body is covered by white hairs, the man is unclean. But if spreading covers the whole body, he is clean. This represents an acute, but defensible reading of the relevant Scripture. By contrast, any amount of spreading is a mark of uncleanness. With white hair we require a specific minimum, two hairs. Spreading applies to every form of plague, as already specified in M. 3: 3-8, while white hair applies only to the skin of the flesh, the boil, and the burning (M. 3: 3-4). M. 4: 1C3 contains a further item, lacking its own verb. Spreading applies outside of the leprosy-sign itself. But white hair is a sign of uncleanness only if located within the leprosy-sign. Out-

68

NBGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:1·3

side, it means nothing. This item is important at M. 4:3. The point of M. 4:1B3 is that if the whole body is covered by white hair, the man is still unclean. But if spreading covers the whole body, the man is clean. (Joshua will reject this rule.) There is no significant difference between white hair and quick flesh, when compared to spreading, except at 4:2B2. Quick flesh is of any color-depending on the person's skin-while white hair is (obviously) a shade of white. Otherwise the items are identical. Quick flesh has to be the size of a lentil; spreading has no minimum measure. This too is taken for granted. Quick flesh, to render unclean, must be in the center of the bright spot; its measure is a lentil; it applies only to plagues of the skin of the flesh and the two baldspots. These points do not register here; they are important only to M. 4:3. The third group, M. 4:3, is the most interesting, because it introduces considerations irrelevant to spreading and compares two items which, to this point, appear to be virtually identical. In fact the two are shown to be quite different. The white hair contaminates when present in a boil or a burning, but quick flesh does not, for a boil or burning has already been changed in appearance. White hair is a mark of uncleanness, whether the hairs are compact or dispersed. But the quick flesh is a sign of uncleanness only when it is compact, all in one place, whole, in the size of a lentil, as I said. White hairs at the fringes of the leprosy-sign are a sign of uncleanness; if the hair is located only at one end of the sign, the sign is unclean. Quick flesh, by contrast, renders unclean only when it is surrounded by the sign, that is, when it is in the middle of the spot. Quick flesh applies to scalp-baldness or forehead-baldness, and, since by definition, there is no hair in these phenomena, white hair does not apply. Quick flesh is a sign of uncleanness if the bright spot came before the quick flesh, that is, if part of the bright spot · turned afterward to quick flesh, or if the quick flesh was present before the bright spot, that is, the bright spot spreads around the quick flesh. But white h¥r renders unclean only when the bright spot is already present ( 4:3CJ). The spot has to turn the hair white (M. 4: 6) . This point is repeated at M. 4: 10-11. If a person's skin, third, has turned entirely white and we have a bit of quick flesh, the person is unclean. But if we have a white hair, he is clean. The last item is obvious. White hair has to be white; quick flesh can be any color. A. There is [ a strict rule applying] to white hair which does not [ applyJ to golden hair, and there is [ a strict rule applying] to golden

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:1-4

69

hair which does not [apply] to white hair. B. White hair does not afford protection for another hair from its power, which is not the case with golden hair. C. And there is [ a strict rule applying] to golden hair, for golden hair is sufficiently powerful in its place to render unclean in any appearance [color], which is not the case with white hair. T. 2:1 (Tos. W & R p. 152, ls. 10-14)

The point of B is that a black hair is ignored if we have a white one, as in M. 4:4J. But T. probably supplements M. 4:1-3 (TR III, p. 167). If black hair grows up where we have a scall, that is a sign of healing (Lev. 13:37). C's rule is clear; we have four shades of white. But any shade of gold is acceptable. The form is identical to M.'s. 4:4 Two hairstheir root is black and their head is whiteC. he is clean. D. Their root is white and their head is blackE. he is unclean. F. How much whiteness must there be? G. Rabbi Meir says, "Any amount at all." H. R. Simeon says, "Sufficient to cut with scissors." I. If it was single below [ at the root J and divided at the top, and it appears like two [hairs], he is clean. I. J. A bright spotK. and in it is white hair or [GRA, Bert.: and] black hairL. -he is unclean. M. They do not take account of the possibility that the place of the black hair has diminished the bright spot, because it is of no substance. M. 4:4 (b. Nid. 52b = M. Nid. 6:12: Long enough for the tips to be bent to the roots, so Ishmael. Eliezer: Long enough to be grasped by a finger-nail. cAqiva = Simeon, M. 4:4H.) A. B.

The construction of chapters through large composites now is interrupted, by M. 4:4A-I, with a complex unit of tradition, consisting of A-C, D-E, F-H, a dispute glossing the foregoing, and I. These units are expressed through apocopated sentences. The massive construction-I- XV-which follows, beginning at M. 4:4J-M, marked by the introduction, a bright spot, makes use of the same apocopation. Otherwise it bears no relationship to 4:4A-I, which is intruded. The

70

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:4

baheret-[bright spot]-construction starts here because of its interest in the matter of the hair. I see no connection, however, between M. 4:1-3 and M. 4:4A-I. A-C and D-E tell us that we follow the status of the root and not the top of the hair. F-H define the extent of the hair, above the root, which must be white. Meir says whiteness at the very base of the follicle suffices; Simeon requires a bit more. I applies the opening principle. We follow the condition of the hair at the root, not that of the top. J-Linaugurate the discussion of bright spots and their uncleanness. The first problem is simple. If we have a bright spot with two hairs, and in addition are black ones (Bert.), and the bright spot is the size of a split bean, ..do we regard the additional hair, not a mark of uncleanness, as diminishing the requisite size of the spot? We do not. The man is unclean. Repeating the foregoing, M gives the reason. It suffices also to give the law; we hardly need the apocopation of J-L. An alternative, and better, reading gives us only black hair, which is more to the point, since a plethora of white hair will not make any difference. But ( following TYT, MS) two points seem to be at hand. One is to ask whether more hairs than the requisite two white hairs matter. They do not. The other is to inquire whether black hairs diminish the requisite size of the bright spot. They do not. GRA sees M as autonomous. J-L's point is that black hair does not afford protection in this situation ( = M . .4: 1 : White hair has no token of cleanness). GRA cites T. 2:1 to support this interpretation. On this last item, Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 2:2) gives, "If within the leprosy sign there are two white hairs, even though a black hair grows between them and they are dispersed to either side, they are still a token of uncleanness. Even though the leprosy sign is exactly the size of a bean, the space of the black hair does not serve to lessen it." Maimonides thus sees J-L as autonomous, and GRA's view accords with his. A. [If] there were two [white] hairs in the plague and they protruded outside of it, he is unclean. If they were outside it and protruded into it, he is clean. B. Said R. Meir, "So that people will not imagine that by ignoramuses are they adjudged: if he saw white hair, he is unclean, and the white is not [ ever] clean." T. 2:2 (Tos. W & R p. 152, ls. 15-18)

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:4

71

The point of A is the same as M. 4:4A-D. We follow the root. On B, see TR III, pp. 167-169. Meir's view, Lieberman explains, is that any amount is unclean (M. 4:4G), since we follow the condition of the root. But since people may not see the whiteness of the root and suppose black hair is a mark of uncleanness, we tell the priest not to certify the man unclean until the top point is white. The man is quarantined. Alternatively, if the priest sees white at the root, the man is unclean; but if this is discerned only with difficulty, he is clean. A. His disciples 1 -1iskedR. Y ose, "A bright spot, and in it is a black hair-do ,they'take account of the possibility that it has perhaps reduced the place of the bright spot to less than a split bean?" B. (Following TR III, p. 169]: He said to them, "A bright spot, and in it is a white hair-do we take into account the possibility that its place has reduced the bright spot to less than a split bean?" C. They said to him, "No, if you have said so concerning a white hair, which is a token of uncleanness, will you say so concerning a black hair, which is not a token of uncleanness?" [Obviously not!] D. He said to them, "Lo, even if there are ten white hairs on him-are not only two [ of them] tokens of uncleanness? E. "Do I take account of the possibility concerning the addition [ al hair J that perhaps it has diminished the place of the bright spot to less than a split bean ?" F. They said to him, "No, if you have said so concerning white hair, which is a kind of uncleanness, will you say so concerning black hair, which is not a kinp,s>f uncleanness?" G. He said to him/''' Also black hair-ultimately the bright spot will turn it [white], so it is a kind of uncleanness." T. 2:3 (Tos. W & R p. 152, 1. 19, p. 153, ls. 1-8)

The argument is based upon M. 4:4M, which the disciples do not know. If they knew that ruling, they could not ask Yose their question. Y ose' s reply in B is that since we indeed do not take account of the possibility that white hair reduces the size of the bright spot, surely we will not do so for black. The answer is to distinguish white hair, which marks uncleanness and therefore need not diminish the size of the bright spot, from black hair, which does not. Yose's reply, D-E, is that even if there are ten white hairs, the space they occupy is not taken into account. Yet only two of them serve as tokens of uncleanness. Since we do not take account of the additional white hair, which does not mark uncleanness, we surely will not do so for black hair, which also does not signify uncleanness. Their reply is that whatever the case, white hair is of the sector of uncleanness, black is not. His final reply is that the black ultimately turns white, not a very strong argument.

72

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:5

4:5 II. A. A bright spot the size of a split beanB. and a streak extends from itC. if there is in it [ the streakJ the breadth of two hairs, D. it [the streak] subjects it [the bright spot} to [the restrictions in respect of} the white hair and the spreading [if either appears in the streak, it is as if they are in the spot], but not to [that in respect of} the quick flesh. [Maimonides, Uncleanness of Leprosy 4:7: "Since quick flesl:i is not a token of uncleanness unless the bright spot encompasses it, and there is a space wide enough for the growth of two hairs between the edge of the quick flesh and the edge of the bright spot."]. Ill. E. Two bright spots,F. and a streak goes forth from one to the otherG. if there is in it a breadth of two hairs, H. it joins them together [to form the prescribed minimum or to combine single hairs, one in each spot, but not, of course, for quick flesh]. And if not, it does not join them together. M. 4:5

The apocopated sentence structure will continue until the end of Chapter Four. The issue is whether a streak extending from a bright spot affects the bright spot. For example, if in the streak we have two white hairs, or if spreading affects the streak but not the primary symptom, what is the rule? The answer is that if we have the stated breadth-sufficient for the growth of two hairs--the streak subjects the primary symptom to the restrictions which occur in the streak, and if not, it does not. Quick flesh will not have sufficient space in the streak to be taken into account. E-H make this same point in respect to two bright spots, connected by a streak. If it is two hairs wide, it connects the bright spots, and symptoms occurring in the one are deemed to affect both of them. They are treated as a single item. Otherwise they are treated as separate items. For example, if we have a single hair in one and a single hair in the other, the man is clean. A. A bright spot, and a streak goes forth from itB. two bright spots, and a streak goes forth from this one to that one-C. if there is in it the breadth of two hairs, it subjects them to uncleanness with a white hair and with spreading. D. But as to quick flesh, it does not join them together until it

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4: 5

73

[ the streakJ is of the breadth of a split bean [ so the quick flesh can be encompassed]. E. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "Just as it does not join them together to render unclean with quick flesh until it is as wide as a split bean, so they are not made subject to uncleanness with white hair and spreading until there will be in it the breadth of a split bean." T. 2:4 (Tos. W &R p. 153, ls. 9-14)

M. rejects Eleazar's position. T. and M. give the same rule, but

T. A+B present as one the separated cases of M. 4:5A and E. This suggests that M. indeed has been revised to yield fifteen bright-spot rules. M. omits D's qualification. A. B.

Two bright spotsand a streak of quick flesh is between theme. [if] on one side a gap developed, the space of [ a size of] one hair, and on the other side a gap, the space of [a size of] one hair, D. it is subject to uncleanness because of spreading, and insusceptible because of quick flesh. E. [TR III, p. 170:J If on one side a gap developed, the space of two hairs, and on the other side a gap, the space of two hairs, it is subject to uncleanness because of spreading and subject to uncleanness because of quick flesh. T. 2:5a (Tos. W &R p. 153, Is. 15-17, as revised by TR)

We have a streak of quick flesh between two bright spots. On one spot we have a place of one hair, so the plague spreads in the thickness of a single hair from one spot to the other, and between the two hairs is quick flesh of the size of a lentil. So the quick flesh is surrounded by the bright spot on two sides, the bright spots being the size of a split bean; and on the other two sides of the quick flesh we have a streak the thickness of a hair. Thus we have uncleanness on account of spreading, for spreading of any measure is unclean. But there is no question of quick flesh, for in the case of quick flesh as a token of uncleanness we require a circumference of two hairs on all sides. This is the same point as M. 4:5A-D ( case II), but the case is that of M. 4:5E-F. T.'s contribution is at B-the streak is quick flesh. That joins the hair, as I said, and can yield spreading; but quick flesh not encompassed is not unclean, a subtle point. A. A bright spot which has been declared clear after certificationquick flesh and white hair is in the spreadingor [he has been_\ieclared clean] after quarantine [W + R p. 363: (Unreiq):!rklarungiri Folge von rohem Fleisch ... (oder) infolge von

74

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:5-6

Ausdehnung oder nach Isolierung ... ] it does not serve to impose quarantine from now on. B. But they go to his account to be declared unclean because of white hair and spreading which come after the plague. T. 2:5B (Tos. W & R p. 153, ls. 17-20)

In A we have spreading throughout the body, so the man is declared clean. If the signs contract and appear on the bright spot, he is not shut up. But (B) if a new spot appeared near the old one, and white hair appears in the old, it is as if it is in the new and the two are combined to certify him unclean (Sens). Maimonides (Uncleanness of Lepr.osy4:8) gives; "If the tokens of uncleanness disappear from a bright spot in respect of which a man had been pronounced clean after having been shut up or after having been adjudged unclean, he may never again be shut up on account of it." W +R translate following Maimonides' version. 4:6 IV. A. A bright spot the size of a split bean,B. and in it [in it = with it in addition (TYY)] is quick flesh the size of a lentilC. and white hair is in the quick fleshD. the quick flesh disappeared [the bright spot taking its place]it [the bright spot] is [still] unclean (TM'H) because of the white hair. E. The white hair disappearedF. he is unclean (TM') becauseof the quick flesh [ = M. 4:3C2). G. R. Simeon declares (D) clean, H. because it [ the bright spotJ did not cause [ the hair to J turn [white, but merely spread into its place]. V. I. A bright spotJ. it and its quick flesh [together are] the size of a spit beanK. and white hair [is] in the midst of the bright spotL. the quick flesh disappeared [the bright spot taking its place]M. it [the spot] is unclean (TM'H) because of the white hair. N. The white hair disappeared0. he (TM') is unclean because of the quick flesh. P. R. Simeon declares clean, Q. because the bright spot the size of a split bean did not cause it [ the hair J to turn [white]. R. And he [obviously] agrees that if there is in the place of the white hair [ itself] [ a spot the size of] a split bean [ without the addition of quick fleshJ, he is unclean. M. 4:6

Taken for granted here are the facts already supplied. The white hair by itself is a sign of uncleanness; so too is the quick flesh. If we

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:6

75

have a bright spot the size of a bean and quick flesh the size of a lentil in addition to the space of the bean, and white hair is in the quick flesh, and the quick flesh disappears and the white hair remains, but not within the bright spot, Simeon holds this white hair is no longer a sign of uncleanness. As we shall see, he asks what has caused the hair to turn white. It is the quick flesh, no longer present, and not the bright spot. The plague itself must be responsible for turning the hair white, and it has not done so. The anonymous opinion stresses that the white hair must come after the plague-mark, and not before. That condition has been met. So the two conflicting principles are clear. Both units assume M. 4:3C2 and M. 4:llF. Let us now turn to the form. The baheret-construction ( IV) is slightly varied at A by the specification of the size, essential to the consequent law. A-F prepare the setting for the dispute, F-H, concerning E. The problem is stated in the simplest way, because it depends on the foregoing, and D + G supply the opinions in normal form. Then H gives the reason. Unit V, I-R, gives essentially the same problem, through Q, and at R supplies a further item of information on Simeon's opinion. So the redactor of the composite has made room for Simeon's rule within his larger structure,, surely revising the received material to conform to his established form. A dispute consisting of E-G or M-P cannot have had much meaning, which shows what has been done. Since Simeon does not stand behind the entire construction, the responsibility for the revision is not in his circle. (The same it to be said at M. 4:7, with reference to cAqiva's unit.) The point of IV is this. We have a bright spot of requisite size. Quick flesh is inside, so there is no doubt that the bright spot, which encompasses the quick flesh, is unclean. We have white hair in the quick flesh. The quick flesh disappears; the bright spot fills the space. Nonetheless, the bright spot is unclean, even if the quick flesh disappears, because the white hair marks it as unclean. Spreading is no issue; the bright spot is not unclean if it spreads into quid< flesh (M. 6:3's sages vs. Meir). If the white hair disappears, the spot is unclean because of the quick flesh. Simeon's ruling, G, refers back to D, not to E-F. He says if the quick flesh disappears, the bright spot is clean. Why? The white hair grew in the quick flesh; it therefore has been made white not by the bright spot, but by the quick flesh, which is no longer present. The supposition of all parties is that the leprosy-sign is what causes the hair to turn white. But the particular

76

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:6-7

token of uncleanness is taken into account by Simeon, while the authority behind D assumes that either the quick flesh or the bright spot can be held responsible for bleaching the hair. The quick flesh is subsumed by the bright spot. Unit V, I-R, repeat the problem with a slightly subtler definition. Now we have a bright spot and quick flesh; together they are the size of a split bean. The hair is in the midst of the bright spot; the quick flesh's disappearance hardly matters now, even to Simeon. If the white hair disappears, the man is unclean, the quick flesh marking the bright spot as unclean. Why? Because the bright spot comes and spreads into the space of the quick flesh; it is now the size of a bean. Simeon says that when the quick flesh disappears, the man is clean, because the bright spot as large as a split bean is not responsible for turning the white hair white. This is nothing more than a slightly more complex version of the foregoing. R makes obvious what is readily surmised. If to begin with we had the requisite spot where the hair is located, then the man is unclean. Why? Because the spot the size of the split bean now is responsible for turning the hair white. We do not now suppose it was the quick flesh which is inside the spot. The white hair (R) is not in the quick flesh but in the bright spot. Simeon does not reject the anonymous rule. His point, as before, is that the bright spot, not the quick flesh, must affect the hair. The entire set thus is devoted to the spelling out of Simeon's opinion, which is the main point. Simeon holds that the hair must appear after the spot, not merely as a matter of formal precedence, but because the bright spot must demonstrably have turned the hair white. If the hair comes in the right order but the spot has not turned it white, Simeon still will not agree that the spot is marked as unclean by the hair. On this basis we have to interpret HPWK when Simeon uses it to mean ''changed"-that is, changed by the bright spot, and not merely "in reverse order." This opinion of Simeon will be stated in other terms; it gives good service to the editor of our composite. 4:7 VI. A. A bright spotB. and in it are quick flesh and spreadingC. the quick flesh disappeared [ after a week of quarantine JD. it is unclean (TM)H) because of the spreading. E. The spreading disappearedF. it is unclean (TM=>H) because of the quick flesh. G. And so with white hair and with spreading.

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:7

77

VII. H. [If} it [a sign of uncleanness} disappeared and returnedat the end of the week, lo this one is as it was [ and is shut up a second week (Bert., MS)}. I. [If it disappeared} after the clearance-it is examined as at the beginning [ and we do not compare it to the first bright spot (Maimonides) J. J. [If] it was bright and became dim, dim and became bright, lo, it is as it was [ and is shut up a second week (Bert.)], K. on [ the obviousJ condition that it not diminish [ to a shade less] than the four appearances [in which case it would be clean]. L. [If} it [ a leprosy-sign more than the size of a split bean] ( 1) contracted and spread, (2) spread and contractedM. R. cAqiva declares unclean [because of the spreading (Bert.)]. N. And sages declare [it at the end of the second week (MA)] clean [because it is as it was (Bert.) ] . M. 4:7

Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Leprosy 4:11) gives, "If within the bright spot there is quick flesh and a spreading and the quick flesh disappears, he remains unclean because of the spreading; if the spreading disappears, he remains unclean because of the quick flesh. The same rule applies if there is white hair and a spreading. "If he had been adjudged unclean because of the white hair and the white hair disappears and other white hair comes back, or if there develops quick flesh or a spreading; or if he is adjudged unclean because of the quick flesh and the quick flesh disappears and other quick flesh or white hair or a spreading develops; or if he has been adjudged unclean because of a spreading and the spreading disappears and other spreading comes back; or if there appears in the bright spot quick flesh or white hair, then he continues to be unclean as he was before. No matter whether he is an unclean person who has been adjudged unclean at the outset or at the end of the first week or at the end of the second week or after having been set free as clean, inasmuch as he has in anywise been adjudged unclean, he can become clean only when no token of uncleanness remains in him, whether it be a token for which he would be adjudged unclean or any other token." Having concluded our discussion of quick flesh and white hair, as in M. 4:1-3 we now raise the same problem in connection with quick flesh and spreading. The apocopated formulary pattern continues and is imposed on the autonomous dispute at the end, L-N. The two units are as follows. In A-G, we have a bright spot, with two leprosy-

78

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:7

signs therein, ( 1) quick flesh and ( 2) spreading. The man is declared unclean. If the quick flesh disappeared, the spot is still unclean because of the spreading. If the spreading receded, the spot is still unclean because of the bright spot. The same self-evident rule applies to spreading and the white hair. The next unit, VII, should not be regarded as interpolated into the larger construction, for its problem, which is different from the foregoing, lays the groundwork for what is to follow. We turn in a different direction. M. 4:6-7G-the bright spot, quick flesh, and white hair-in retrospect are simply a more sophisticated way of expressing the relationships already given at M. 4: 1- 3 ( not to mention M. 3: 3). The reference of H is to A. Otherwise H begins a new item. H has the bright spot disappear during the days of quarantine; then it recurs at the end of the week. The man has to be shut up for another week. If this happens at the end of the second week, the man is declared clear. If the spot recurs after the man has been clearedthe bright spot not having spread and having disappeared, then having returned to its place-the man is reexamined afresh. The spot is treated as a new phenomenon. Two quarantine periods then are assigned. J-Ksimply give another obvious rule: the same is so for colors. If the spot changed in its shade, then returned to its original shade, it is treated as if it has not changed at all. If it grows dimmer than the specified shades of white, to be sure, it i-sclean (K). L-N then give us a third statement of the same point. Now we have a leprosy sign of requisite size which contracts to less than requisite size, then spreads again. Following Maimonides' explanation, we hold that cAqiva says, since (Ll) part of the sign remained and then spread, we treat this as bona fide spreading (MA), and the man is certified unclean. If the sign diminishes in size after spreading, it is regarded as a new bright spot and the man is shut up. cAqiva therefore declares both cases (Ll, L2) unclean. Sages hold that this is no spreading at all. Following Maimonides, we explain that if this is at the end of the first week, the man is shut up for another week. If it comes at the end of the second week, there having been no spreading, the man is dismissed as clean (TYY). The set in VII-H-I, J-K,and L-N-is continued, as we shall note. cAqiva's case thus contains no implications as to his position on the first two items. To summarize unit VII: H-I present a generalization about the disappearance of any sign of uncleanness. ''If a sign disappears but

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

79

4:7-8

returns" means that we have examined the person and found a sign, quarantined him for a week, and quring that week, the sign disappeared, but by the next inspection, it returned. The sign is regarded as it was at the outset; there having been no change at the second inspection, the man is shut up for a second week. If the man is cleared and then the sign of uncleanness returned, we have a new bright spot and a new process of inspection. That generalization then is developed in terms of two specific types of change, first, color (J), and second, spreading and contraction (L). In the case of color, any change within the specified limit of shades is ignored. I do not see how J-Ktells us anything we have not heard, e.g., in the rule (M. 1 :3) that the four shades 'join together', that is, are regarded as equivalent in contaminating effect to one another. L gives us the second example, now with contraction and spreading. The simplest explanation of L is that it goes over the ground of H, that is, disappearing and returning is the equivalent of contracting and spreading. If so, cAqiva will disagree with H-1 and J-K, though obvious distinctions can be drawn in the latter instance. What is very unclear is the force of L2. If we have spreading and then contraction, why should cAqiva declare the sign unclean? Clearly, the sages' position in both instances is consistent with H. If we have contraction and spreading, we ignore the intermediate condition -contraction-and the leprosy-sign is at the end exactly what it was at the beginning, so the man, having produced no sign of uncleanness, is declared clean, as MA stresses, at the end of the second week. If we have spreading and contraction, of course the man will be clean. It is cAqiva's position which is difficult to explain, as I said, in respect to L2. We are required to interpret cAqiva's '''unclean" to mean "the man is shut up on account of a new bright spot." But this is hardly what is at issue in all other cases of our pericope. I am inclined to see as the simplest solution the possibility that L2 does not belong, for to show that it does belong, we have to read into the matter a number of considerations not clearly present to begin with. 4:8 VIII. A. A bright spot the size of a split beanB. and it spread to the extent of a half split beanC. and half a split bean disappeared from the primary signD. R. cAqiva says, "It is inspected anew." E. And sages declare clean. M. 4:8

80

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:8

The new case, continuing M. 4:7H-N, has a bright spot the size of a split bean, on which account the man has been quarantined. Then the spot spread on one side. But the primary sign also has diminished. Thus we have a new bright spot; part comes from spreading of the original one to the extent of a half split bean, and we have half of the original split bean. cAqiva, consistent with his position in M. 4:7M, says we treat this as a new sign of requisite size, thus combining the original bright spot's remainder with that formed in the spreading. Sages say that since we no longer have the requisite bright spot with which we began, the formation is clean. It is not of requisite size to be unclean. At the end of the second week, therefore, we dismiss the man as clean. Or we regard it as clean at the end of the first week, there having been no adequate spreading; the half bean which spread does not join with the primary bright spot for the man to be declared unclean. What is the underlying issue? It is the status of the original bright spot. We have contraction and also spreading. In cAqiva's view, we take into account not only the contraction of the primary sign, but also the appearance of new affected tissue, so we regard it as a new sign, which is to be inspected. Sages' view is that the original spot has contracted, and the new affected tissue is not of requisite size. In terms of M. 4:7L, how shall we interpret the present case? Do we have contraction, then spreading ( L 1), or spreading, then contraction (L2)? The answer, clearly, is that we have spreading, then contraction, that is, B first specifies spreading, and then-and only then-C specifies contraction. That would seem to me to mean L2 is equivalent to the case before us and does not belong in M. 4: 7L at all. Now we can try to make some sense of the foregoing. M. 4:7L1-N deal solely with contraction, then spreading. Sages' position there is as explained, that is, we ignore the intervening contraction. cAqiva's position there is that the sign is unclean because we do take account of the intervening spreading, and, as I suggested, he will not agree with M. 4:7H. Now, as we take up M. 4:7L2, the spreading, then contraction, we have at M. 4:8D an opinion for cAqiva which, at last, is appropriate to the facts of the case. cAqiva cannot declare the sign unclean-it has contracted. But he can and does hold that it is not regarded as cleanit has, after all, also spread. The best solution, cAqiva holds, is to treat the sign as a new one, to be subjected to quarantine. I am therefore inclined to regard M. 4:7L2 as inappropriate in its

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:8-9

81

context, and M. 4:8 as a clearer and more accurate statement of cAqiva's view. To put it differently, M. 4:7L2 is revised and spelled out at M. 4:8, probably because the problem that troubled us also troubled the authority behind M. 4:8-that is, the party who developed the entire bright-spot-construction before us. For M. 4:7H-N and 4:8-9, Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Leprosy 4:5) gives, '''If a bright spot the size of a bean spreads to an extent of half a bean or more, and from the main token there disappears as much as half a bean, then even though the residue of the main token together with the spreading exceeds the size of a bean, he who bears the token is still clean . . . If there is a bright spot on him, and he is shut up and the bright spot disappears at the end of the days while he is shut up, and then the bright spot returns in the place where it has been, he remains as he was before. "If it grows smaller during the days he is shut up, and then spreads anew to what it has been, or if it spreads and then the spreading grows smaller and returns to what it has been, then he must be shut up again." In the first part, therefore, Maimonides states matters in accord with 4:8's sages. In the second, we have M. 4:7L-N. The person is as he was. He is shut up anew. After the second week, the man presumably will be clean, as the sages say. Maimonides' solution to the problem of M. 4:7L2 is to add, and returns to what it has been-but then to rule that we quarantine the man again! This is hardly "declaring clean," and MA's interpolation at M. 4:7N does not change matters. ( See Rabad to Maimonides 4: 5.) 4:9 }( (_ A. A bright spot the size of a split beanB. and [ after clearanceJ it spread as much as another half split bean and moreC. and about half a split bean disappeared from the primary signD. R. cAqiva declares unclean. E. And sages declare clean. X. F. A bright spot the size of a split beanG. and [ after clearanceJ it spread for as much as a split bean and moreH. and the primary sign disappeared!. R. cAqiva declares unclean. J. And sages say, "Let it be inspected anew." M. 4:9

The only change in unit IX from the foregoing is that the spreading of the bright spot is more than a half split bean. cAqiva's opinion 6

82

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:9

is that, since the bright spot has spread more than a split bean, 1t 1s unclean, as it was before it spread from the primary sign. Why should he change his opinion of M. 4:8? The sages' position is the important side. At the end of the second week the man still is clean. \Xlhy? Because we still do not have the requisite size in the primary sign. The remnant docs not join to the original spot. Spreading must pertain to the original sign (TYT). In unit X, by contrast, the sages concede that, while the primary sign has disappeared, the spreading has produced a sign of requisite size. We again have a sign to be examined. 'v✓hen the first bright spot disappeared, it left behind a new one of requisite size for shutting up. This same problem continues in M. 4:lOA-F. cAqiva's "unclean" changes nothing in his original opinion. There is nothing to inspect; we have to certify the sign unclean. A bright spot after the clearanceit contracted and spread, or spread and contractedit changed in appearance from snow-white to lime-white and [or] from lime-white to snow-white-D. lo, this is just as it was. E. A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spread to the extent of a half a split bean [further], and from the primary sign a half split bean disappearedF. R. cAqiva says, "Let it be inspected as at the outset." G. And sages declare clean. H. A bright spot the size of a split bean, and it spread to the extent of a split bean and more, I. [if} about half a split bean disappeared from the primary sign, J. R. 'Ac1iva declares unclean. K. And sages say, "Let it be inspected as at the outset." T. 2:6 (Tos. W &R p. 153, ls. 21-23, p. 154, ls. 1-4) A. B. C.

T. treats M. 4:7-9 as a unit. T. 2:6A ignores M. 4:7H, that is, the disappearance and recurrence of the token of uncleanness at the end of the week. It begins with M. 4:71, the bright spot after clet1rimce. Then T. combines M. 4:7J, "it was bright and became dim," or vice versct, and M. 4:7L, "it contracted and spread," or vice versa. T. thus insists that both cases cZreidentical. T. concludes with D, "This is just as it was." With whose opinion does T. concur? Clearly, M. 4:7J will be in accord with T., for it uses the same language: "It is at it ·was." What about M. 4:7L-N? cAqiva tells us, in the case of contraction and spreading or 1'ice versa, that the item is unclean, and sages say it is clean. Since we have specified that we are dealing with

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:9-10

83

a bright spot which has been cleared, thus declared clean, saying that it is as it was is equivalent to saying that it is clean. Accordingly, we are on firm ground in insisting, against all the commentaries, that M. 4:7's cAqiva must disagree at M. 4:7H, I, J-K, as much as at L. T. has phrased matters ignoring cAqiva's opinion, doing so in such a way as to shmv cAqiva will reject the sages' view at M. 4:7H and J as much as at L-N. T. 2:6E-G bring us to M. 4:8. The p:magc is given exactly as in M. T. 2:6H-K repe8.t M. 4:9A-E, but with one difference. M.'s sages declare clean, and T.'s say the sign is inspected as at the outset. What is the meaning of this difference? In M. 4:9 we held that our case involves spreading after clearance. The sages say the sign is clean. T.'s case at A specifies, "after clearance." Do the sages regard the sign described in H-I as clean? Of course they do. The original spot indeed is clean, just ,ls in M., but it is to be inspected as at the outset to determine whether it will hereafter exhibit tokens of uncleanness. Accordingly, I see no disharmony between the sages of M. 4:9A-E and those of T. 2 :6H-K. What does T. prorose to tell us? It is that, in the case of spreading to the extent of a half split bean and more, the sages' view will not be exactly the same as it is in M. 4:8. They concede that this case is somewhat different from M. 4:S's and therefore a new inspection will be required. But that is not precluded, T. strongly implies, by M. 4:9E's sages' declaration that the original sign indeed is clean. T. is on firm ground, for M. 4:lOA-F will now show that spreading to the extent of a spli! he11n,md more-now, so much more as m1other 1plit bean-leads the sages to require a new inspection. So T.'s contribution is to ask us to mid M. 4:9 in the light of M. 4:lOA-B+C and to regard the s,1gcs' position as identical in both cases. M. to begin with, however, will probably have seen the cases as distinct, since M. 4:lOC changes the picture completely.

4:10 XI. B. C. D. E. F. XII. H. I.

J.

A. A bright spot the size of a split beanand it spread to the extent of a split beanand there appeared in the spreading quick flesh or white hair-~ but the primary sign disappeared-R. cAqiva declares unclean. And sages say, "Let it be inspected anew." G. A bright spot the size of a half split beanand there is nothing in ita bright spot the size of a half split bean appearedand in it is one hair-

84

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR 4: 10

K.

lo, this is to be shut up. L. A bright spot the size of a half split beanM. and in it is one hairN. a bright spot half a split bean in size appearedO. and in it is one hairP. lo, this is to be shut up. XIV. Q. A bright spot the size of a half split beanR. and in it are two hairsS. a bright spot the size of a half split bean appeared, T. and in it is one hairU. lo, this is to be shut up. M. 4:10 (y. M.Q. 1:5)

XIII.

In XI, we have a bright spot of requisite size, which has spread to the extent of a split bean. The spreading then develops quick flesh or white hair. But the primary sign has disappeared. cAqiva declares the man unclean, because he regards the two signs as joined together. The spreading takes the place of the original sign ( Slotki). We have, therefore, sufficient evidence of uncleanness. The sages' position, as before, is that we have a new sign. The first spot has disappeared. This concludes the set on cAqiva's opinion. Let us now review units VII-XI, the five cases of cAqiva's view that a remnant of a bright spot is taken into account: VII.

A bright spot contracted and spread (spread and contracted): cAqiva: Unclean Sages: Clean. VIII. A bright spot the size of a split bean spread to the size of a half split bean but contracted to the size of a half split bean [ = VII further articulated, and so throughout] : cAqiva: Inspected anew Sages: Clean. IX. A bright spot the size of a split bean spread as much as another half split bean and more but contracted to the size of a half split bean: cAqiva: Unclean Sages: Clean. X. A bright spot the size of a split bean spread for as much as a split bean and more, but the primary sign completely disappeared: cAqiva: Unclean Sages: Inspected anew. XI. A bright spot the size of a split bean spread for as much as a split bean and quick flesh or white hair appeared in the spreading, but the primary sign completely disappeared: cAqiva: Unclean Sages: Inspected anew.

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:10

85

These five cases yield a single principle for Aqiva. We always take account of changes which affect the primary sign between the original inspection and those discerned at the examination after quarantine. The first case is the simplest. We have contraction and spreading. cAqiva holds that the spot is unclean. The sages do not take account of the changes between the first inspection and the second. Then we have spreading and contraction. In the intervening period the bright spot, had it been inspected, would have been regarded as unclean. So we now inspect it anew. IX is generated by VIII. Having specified the opinions with spreading of a half split bean and contraction of a half split bean, we ask what cAqiva would say if we had still more spreading than a half split bean. The answer is that we have a bright spot of requisite size; it is unclean. Sages remain firm that all we have of the original bright spot the size of a split bean is half. It has contracted. It is clean. At X the primary sign wholly disappears. The position of cAqiva remains the same. Why should be change his mind? But the sages now agree that the new spot is to be taken seriously. This is no concession at all. We now do have a bright spot of requisite size. We still, from the sages' viewpoint, have not taken into account intervening phenomena. At XI the sages' position remains as it is in X. We must ask, will cAqiva agree with M. 1:4-6? M. l:4F has said that, in the cases presented at M. 1 :5-6, we do not take account of changes which take place between one inspection and the next, but only those which appear at the time of actual inspection. I do not see how cAqiva can agree, e.g., with M. 1:5S, ''The first sign went away or diminished." Here is a case of contraction, as at M. 4:7L, or total disappearance, as at M. 4:lOC. Do we have a lenient decision? Certainly not on cAqiva's part. He says the sign is unclean. What about the sages? Of course they give us a lenient decision. They say we start the process of inspection all over again; the man is not decisively unclean. The sages will have no difficulty with the strict decisions of M. 1 :6, for in all these cases, we have firm evidence of uncleanness. (M. 8:10 obviously will pose equivalent problems to cAqiva; these do not require specification.) Now we have to inquire, Is there any connection between cAqiva's view in the large construction we have examined, and his opinion in M. 1 :4. There l:fananiah Prefect of the Priests has told us that we do not examine bright spots on Sunday, since the next inspection must fall on the Sabbath, and so on. cAqiva says we do so. We simply postpone the examination after quarantine to the next appropriate day.

86

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:10

It seems to me his position is quite consistent with his principle in the cases before us. He says, What difference will it make whether we examine on the seventh day after the original inspection, or on the day thereafter? In any case we are going to take into account changes which affect the bright spot during the intervening week, not only those changes which appear to our eyes on the actual day of inspection. In other words, there is no real point in concerning ourselves with the specific moment of examination, since whatever happens from the original inspection to the second inspection, after quarantine, is going to be taken into account. He is quite consistent in both cases. What about J:Iananiah's opinion? To him the interval of the seven days between the original inspection and the examination after quarantine is very important. Why? We are told by Scripture to wait seven days. To J:Iananiah that must mean we do not take account of what happens in the intervening period. What we see at the first inspection is compared solely to what we see at the second. That is the main point of the seven days, whatever happens on them. We shall therefore want seven days exactly, even at the price of postponing the original examination by a day. Obviously, }::Iananiah will have no difficulty with the lenient rulings of M. 1: 5, let alone the strict ones of M. 1:6, and he will surely be comfortable with M. 8:10. Perhaps it is not far-fetched to observe that to J:Iananiah Prefect of the Priests the decisive moment comes when the priest makes his declaration. Whatever happens before that time is not taken into account, since it is the priest who declares the matter clean or unclean. cAqiva, by contrast, is interested in what happens between one inspection and the next. Will the priest be consulted on the intervening days? Of course not, because Scripture is clear that the priest makes his examination on the seventh day. Who then will be consulted? Obviously, so far as cAqiva is concerned, it will be someone who is expert "in them and in their names," that is, the sage. Since it is entirely reasonable to suppose the sage is going to see the bright spot on the intervening days, even though the sage will not tell the priest what to say until the formality of the declaration, cAqiva takes the position that what matter are phenomena which will be properly inspected by the sage. }::IananiahPrefect of the Priests holds that what is decisive is the declaration by the priest, and not what a sage in the meanwhile will observe. To the sages the priestly declaration is a formality, with no substantive meaning; .}::Iananiahwishes to preserve the

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:10-11

87

importance of that very declaration and to oppose making it into a mere formality. It is hardly surprising that I:Iananiah's position should be taken for granted specifically in those pericopae we have, on formal grounds, selected for use in a priestly academy, and M. 8:10 could not be clearer on this point. Units XII, XIII, and XIV arc autonomous of the foregoing, though of course they follow the established form. In XII we have a bright spot of half the requisite size, with no sign of uncleanness. Then a bright spot of the size of a half split bean appears next to the original spot, and this latter spreading contains one hair. The man is shut up. The same situation pertains in XIII, except that now we have a hair in the original sign and one in the new sign. The same rule applies. The full-sized spot did not come before the hairs. Both rulings seem to me to accord with the sages of the opening rule (F); that is, we do not regard the new spreading as joined to, and part of, the original is, the sign is inspected sign. Therefore the person is shut up-that anew. But we do not hold that the man is unclean. In the last item, we have ;1 bright spot the size of a half split bean, with the requisite hair; a bright spot the size of another half with a hair in it appeared next to it. This is still a case of doubt. Why? The spot the size of a half split bean has turned the hair white, not the spot the size of a split bean. Simeon can find little comfort in this case. 4:11

XV.

A. A bright spot the size of a half split beanand there is nothing in itC. a bright spot the size of a half split bean appearedand in it are two hairs---· !). E. lo, this is to be certified [ as unclean]. (XVI). F. For they have said, If the bright spot preceded the white hair, he is unclean, and if the white hair preceded the bright spot, he is clean. G. And if there is doubt, he is unclean. H. And R. Joshua was doubtful (QHH = dim: or "it darkened"). M. 4:11 (b. Niel. 196, b. Ket. 75b: "It darkened and therefore he is clean;" b. Naz. 656, b. B.M. 86a, b. Sanh. 876, b. N id. 19a) B.

In the final case, we have a brigbt spot the size of a half split bean. It bears no marks of uncleanness. Then alongside appears another half split bean, with two hairs. Now we have a spot of requisite size.

88

NEGAIM CHAPTER f'OUR

4: 11

This is ruled unclean. We assume the spot has turned the hair white. F explains this ruling. The issue is solely the order of the hair. If the bright spot of requisite size preceded the white hair, then the spot is responsible for turning the hair white. If the hair was there first, we assume the hair has not been turned white by the spot. In a situation of doubt we rule the man unclean. The meaning of G's QHH is variously explained. Units XII, XIII, and XIV have given us cases in which the bright spot is not of requisite size before the appearance of hair. Let us review the entire construction. In XII, we have a bright spot of requisite size, but no hair. Then we have a bright spot of half a split bean joining the first. But it has only one hair. Obviously, we have no reason to certify this spot unclean; it has not got requisite hair. XII is important only in preparing us for the next two items. At XIII, the original half bright spot also has one hair. Then comes another half bright spot, and it too has one hair. This is shut up. Why? Because the whole bright spot has not preceded the two hairs. We have no reason to suppose the complete bright spot has turned both hairs white. XIV, finally, gives us the really interesting problem, a bright spot of half requisite size, but two hairs are now in it. Then the second half of the bright spot appears. The detail about its having a hair of its own, M. 4:IOT, is irrelevant. The problem is complete without it. Was the bright spot present before the appearance of the white hair? No, only half a bright spot was present at the appearance of the two white hairs. This spot too is shut up. XV, as we just saw, supplies the only valid case. We have a half split bean, then another occurs, a11dthen come the two hairs. This is a case in which the two hairs appear in a spot of requisite size. It is certified unclean. XVI is clear as the conclusion. G-H stand apart from the construction. Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 2 :9) gives, ''If there is a bright spot the size of a half bean containing nothing at all, and there develops beside it a bright spot the size of half a bean containing one white hair, this requires that he who bears the token shall be shut up. If there is a bright spot the size of half a bean containing one white hair, and there develops beside it a bright spot the size of half a bean also containing one white hair, this, too, requires that he who bears the token shall be shut up. If there is a bright spot the size of half a bean containing two white hairs and there develops beside it a bright spot the size of half a bean containing one white hair, this again requires that he who bears the token shall be shut up. [M. 4:11] If

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4: 11

89

there is a bright spot the size of half a bean containing nothing at all and there develops beside it a bright spot the size of half a bean containing two white hairs, this requires that he who bears the token shall be adjudged unclean, since the bright spot came before the two white hairs. If it is in doubt whether the white hair or the bright spot came first, in such a case he who bears the token is declared unclean. But it seems to me that his uncleanness remains in a state of doubt." A. A bright spot the size of a half split beanand in it are two hairsB. there appeared in the bright spot a half split beanand in it are two hairsC. lo, this is to be certified. D. If one erred and did not know whether it [the spot] turned it [the hair white] and whether it [the spot] came first, he is clean. E. And if after he certified him unclean, he erred, and it is not known whether it turned it white, and whether it came first, he is unclean. F. If two disappeared on him, he is unclean; and [ if) three, he is clean. G. R. Leazar b. R. Simeon says, "If there is doubt whether the bright spot came before the white hair, or whether the white hair came before the bright spot, since a doubt in matters of plagues produces a lenient ruling, he is clean." T. 2:7 (Tos. W & R p. 154, ls. 5-11)

T. A-C develop the problem of M. 4:11. M. has given us a bright spot the size of a half split bean with no token of uncleanness, then the bright spot is completed to requisite size, and thereafter the two hairs appear. Now, in T. A-B, we have a bright spot of half the requisite size. In it are two hairs. Is the spot unclean? Of course not, since it is not of requisite size. Then a half split bean completes the original sign, and thereafter two more hairs appear. Is it now unclean? Of course. It is to be certified. The second white hairs have appeared after the spot was complete and of requisite size. What T. contributes, therefore, is the clarification that if we have hair in the original sign, that does not affect the appearance of hair in the augmented one. We exclude from consideration the possibility of ruling that the white hair-namely, that which was in the first half split bean-was present before the bright spot reached its contaminable size, so that what comes thereafter is not taken into consideration, and the spot is quarantined. Having given the present case, we exclude from consideration the original two hairs and thus clarify M. 4:llF. D says that when we do not know, before certification, whether

90

NEGAIM CHAPTER FOUR

4:11

the person is clean or unclean, he is clean. This on the face of it surely contradicts M. 4:llF. But, E adds, if this comes after the person is certified unclean, then he is unclean. Taken togetper, therefore, D-E provide an important qualification for M. 4:llf,' If we have a case of doubt and this is before certification, we resolve it in favor of a lenient decision; if we have a doubt after certification he is unclean. And M. 4:1 lF is now made to speak of the situation after certification. This is another instance of T.'s excellent ''clarification" of M.-or legislating on the basis of M. Lieberman explains Fas follows (TR III, p. 170): Since the man has been certified as unclean (E), we do not declare that he is clean on the basis of the possibility that the two hairs which have fallen out have disappeared from the second part of the bright spot. He remains unclean. If three fall out, however, then we are sure that part of the original token of uncleanness-one of the two hairs-has disappeared from the second pa1t of the bright spot, on which basis he originally was declared to be unclean. He now is clean. G viewed as an autonomous statement pfaces Leazar b. R. Simeon in opposition to M. 4:llF. There, if we have a doubt the man is unclean, and here, if there is doubt, he is clean. (But Sens links G to F.)

CHAPTER FIVE

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE The present chapter focuses upon the rule that, when dealing with plagues, we resolve matters of doubt in favor of a lenient decision. That rule, introduced at M. 4:11 + T. 2:7, is now glossed in several ways. M. 5:1 refers explicitly to M. 4:11, "Except for this one ... ," and proceeds to link that item to its own second problem. The problem is the confusion of two leprosy-signs. M. 5 :2 is tied thematically to the foregoing. But its rule is quite separate. In fact, M. 5:2 makes its point three times, in reference to white hair, then quick flesh, and finally spreading-that is, a counterpart to M. 4:1-3. The point is that we do not take account of changes in the condition of a bright spot before us, ruling without regard to what may have happened in the interval between inspections. Unlike cAqiva, the authority behind M. 1:5-6 and 8:10 will not have been surprised by this rule. All we have, in fact, is that common principle applied to new cases; yet even the cases are not going to have astonished the authority behind M. 1 :5-6. Accordingly, what we have is a different way of saying the same thing, that is, the mode of formulation selected by the authority behind M. 4:1-3, who wants to compare the three tokens of uncleanness in a bright spot. Since cAqiva in M. 4:7-10 certainly supposes we do take account of changes in the interval between inspections, we may confidently assume that the authority behind our pericope also is Y avnean at the latest and gives us the exact opposite of cAqiva's position. M. 5: 3 is an autonomous rule, concerning residuary hair, that is, hair which originally appeared in a bright spot, then remained when the bright spot disappeared. First we have a pericope involving cAqavya b. Mahallel, generally assumed to have lived before the destruction of the Temple. Then we have cAqiva's revision of that pericope, in terms congruent to his position in M. 4:7-10. I think M. 5:3 was introduced at this point to underline the disagreement between cAqiva and the authority behind M. 5:2. cAqiva, as noted, assumes we do take account of what takes place in the interval between inspections, and the sages in M. 5: 3 insist we do not. This is a fine editorial insertion.

92

NEG AIM CHAPTER FIVE

5: 1

After the insertion of a pericope containing implications contrary to those in the original definition of doubts concerning plagues, we return, in M. 5 :4-5, to further efforts to define cases resolved, because of doubt, in favor of a lenient decision. M. 5 :4 takes the topic sentence and inserts a gloss which radically revises the given rule. A doubt in the first instance is resolved as clean, but, once we have a decision, we resolve doubts in a strict way ( = T. 2:7). We have a further case in which the spots on two individuals are confused, so that we do not know which one has spread. cAqiva comments upon, and revises, this case. M. 5:5 gives us the counterpart of M. 5:4's gloss. Now once a spot has been decided to be unclean, doubts are regarded as strictly as possible. The same case is outlined, two men come to a priest, then we are confused as to which party exhibits the taken of uncleanness. Since M. 4:11 gives us Joshua's saying pertinent to the issue of our chapter, and since virtually every pericope before us contains an cAqivan opinion, explicit or implicit, we are an firm grounds to conclude that the issue of doubts with reference to plague-marks is Yavnean.

5:1 A. Every doubt [ concerning] plagues is [ regarded asJ clean, B. except for this one [ = M. 4: 11 J, and one other. And what is this? C. He on whom was a bright spot the size of a split bean, and one shut it up [K: and they shut it up JD. at the end of one weekE. and behold, it is about the size of a selaF. it is a doubt that this is it [the same one, which has spread]G. it is a doubt that another has come in its place [and must be quarantined for a weekJH. he is unclean. M. 5:1

M. 5:1 refers back to M. 4:11. It begins with the simple declaration, A. This is forthwith qualified. The same declarative sentence recurs at M. 5 :4, glossed at the italicized words: "Every doubt [ concerning) plagues in the first instance is [regarded) as clean." This sentence continues: "Once one is subjected to uncleanness, his [ case of) doubt is unclean." M. 5 :5A thus quotes the continuation and glosses it. The original sentence would seem to have been "Every doubt [concerning) plagues is [regarded as) dean." M. 5:lB supplies one sort of gloss, M. 5 :4's in the first instance another. That naturally generated the contrary, "Once one is subjected ... unclean," which,

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5: 1-2

93

after all, is the logical inference to be drawn from in the first instance. T. has already given its gloss. The gloss of B connects A to the second case of doubt ( in addition to M. 4:ll's doubt on whether the spot preceded the hair), ruled as unclean. This is given in C-H, a long, apocopated sentence. The case involves the appearance of a bright spot of requisite size. The man is shut up for a week. At the end of the week (D) the spot has spread. (D must go with E, despite and.) However, we do not know whether the spreading derives from that original bright spot, or whether we have another one in its place. The possibility is that the original has disappeared, and another grown up in its place, which requires quarantine for a week, the first time around. This doubt is resolved in favor of uncleanness. The man is certified unclean. In a moment we shall repeat this case, for M. 5 :4 goes over the same ground, only with two bright spots. A. hairB.

5:2 One certified it [ = the bright spot, as unclean] through white

white hair went awayand white hair returnedD. and so with quick flesh and with spreadingE. [ whether the certification was] in the first instance, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, [PB: and] after the clearanceF. [PB: and] lo, it is as it was [unclean, no further inspection being required]. G. One certified it [the bright spot, as unclean] through quick fleshH. and the quick flesh went awayI. and the quick flesh returnedJ(K. and so with white hair and with spreadingL. in the first place, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearanceM. lo, it is as it was [unclean]. N. One certified it unclean through spreading0. the spreading went awayP. and the spreading returnedQ. and so with white hairR. at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the clearances. lo, it is as it was [unclean]. M. 5:2 C.

The pericope consists of three parallel cases, A-F, G-M, and N-S. The cases are expressed in apocopation. They make the same point,

94

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:2-3

which is that once a person is certified unclean, all the symptoms of uncleanness must disappear before he can be regarded as clean. The disappearance of the first symptoms along with the recurrence of the same ones does not yield cleanness. If a bright spot is certified unclean through the presence of white hair, whether this certification comes in the first examination or after a week or two of quarantine or even after clearance, and if that hair disappears but other white hair takes its place, or quick flesh or spreading develops, the person is unclean as before, and no further quarantine is required for that decision. G repeats the same rule for quick flesh. N-S then leave out quick flesh, because the appearance of quick flesh in spreading is not invariably a sign of uncleanness (M. 6:2) (Maimonides), and omit the first inspection, for spreading is only discernible after a week of quarantine. Otherwise the cases are interchangeable. We need hardly point out that the authority behind M. 1 :5-6 and the sages of M. 4:7-10 will concur, but it is difficult to see how cAqiva can, especially since M. 5:2N-S describe a case equivalent to M. 4:7's spreading and contracting and to M. 4:8's and 4:9's parallels. 5:3 A. Residuary hair (scR PQWDH)B. cAqavya [V: cAqiva] b. Mehallel declares unclean. C. And sages declare clean. D. What is residuary hair? E. He on whom was a bright spotand in it is white hairF. the bright spot went away, and left white hair in its place, and it [then J came backG. cAqavya b. Mehallel declares unclean. H. And sages declare dean. I. Said R. cAqiva, "I agree in this case that he is dean. J. "What is residuary hair ? K. "He on whom was a bright spot the size of a bean, and in it are two hairs, L. "and half a split bean [in area] went away from it, and left behind white hair in the place of the bright spot, M. "and returned." N. They said to him, "Just as they declared null the words of cAqavya, so your words are not confirmed." M. 5:3 (M. Ed. 5:6)

This complex pericope begins with a complete unit of tradition, the dispute, A-C. It is assumed that we know what residuary hair is. D-F then define the matter, repeating B-C i'ti:t G-H, rather than simply

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:3

95

ending, as in the apocopated instances we know so well, "it is unclean." Without D we should have the protasis of a dispute. I then gives a comment of cAqiva on E-H. There is no possibility of viewing J-Mas separate from cAqiva's saying, for N assumes that cAqiva has said more than I, and the remainder of the saying obviously is taken for granted. N, as is clear, is the completion of the gloss begun at I. \V-ho is responsible for D-H? Probably not the person who gives us A-C, for he has followed established form and supplied the normal, abbreviated protasis. But D-H are curiously relevant to cAc1iv:1.'sreformulation at J-M.In fact the definitions are the same, except for what is important to cAqiva. He adds the size of a bean to the bright spot, also two hdirs, and he has half of the original bright spot leave, instead of the whole thing. In other words, what is important to him is that we have two white hairs and part of the original bright spot. The spot comes before the h:i.irs (M. 4:11), for we surely have the original bright spot, which has come back. cAqiva's definition of residuary hair differs from the first, because it improves matters, correcting for M. 4:ll's rule; cAqiva leaves good grounds for declaring residuary hair unclean. Or, to put it differently, cAqiva agrees with cAqavya that residuary hair is unclean. The case outlined in D-H allows cAqiva to concede that the original sages are right, but he will now define residuary hair in such a way that their objections will be met. It is in order to defend the proposition ( or tradition) that residuary hair is unclean that cAqiva has revised the definition. N is then a good answer: this does not help. Let us now turn to the substance of the matter. The problem is the definition of residuary hair. The first definition has a bright spot 'with a white hair; the spot disappears, the hair remains. Then the spot comes back. cAqavya supposes that the spot which comes bJ.ck is the one that was there before. The hair which remained in the meanwhile follows the original spot, is unclean, and characterizes the new as unclean. Why? Because the spot turned the hair white. PQDH is understood as a kind of guard; since the white hair remained and the spot returned, this is evidence that the spot has not been healed. The spot which returned comes on account of the first spot, and this is signified by the hair's remaining. Rabad to M. Ed. 5 :6 observes that since the spot turned the hair white, the hair was a token of uncleanness, and it ,hai9 remains so even in a new bright spot. How does 'Aqiva's revision improve matters (I-M)? As noted, cAqiva first of all specifies that we have a spot of requisite size. We

96

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:3-5

have hair of requisite number-two. Now if the part of the spot disappeared, part has still remained. The white hair ("residuary hair") likewise remains. Since the half split bean of the spot's area comes back, we take into account the fact that, in-between time, the two white hairs remained in their place as in the first instance, and so did part of the original spot. This now is surely the first spot that has come back. cAqiva's revision clearly improves matters-but only in a relative way. In fact sages declare residuary hair, however defined, as unclean, because the spot now before us has not turned the hair white. MA supplies an important observation. He describes the case as follows. The bright spot disappears in the first week. The priest then examines the man and, seeing that the spot has disappeared, clears him. At the end of the second week it returns. But if the spot were to disappear during the quarantine-week itself and to return at the end of the week, the sages will have to agree that what has happened during the quarantine is not taken into account. Whatever changes take place in the interim are ignored, as in M. 4:7. The position of the sages is that this certainly is a new spot, which has come after the white hair. It is not a matter of doubt, for doubts in matters of plagues are clean. This is a fine comment, because MA shows the clear relationship of M. 4:7 to the issue of changes in the interim.

5:4-5 A. Every doubt concerning plagues in the first instance is clean[ this means:] B. before it has been subjected to uncleanness. C. Once it has been subjected to uncleanness, its [ condition of] doubt is unclean. D. How so? E. Two who came to a priestF. on this one is a bright spot the size of a split beanG. and on this one is a bright spot [ following K] the size of a

sela-

H. At the end of a week, on this one is [ a bright spot the size of) a sela, and on this the size of a selaI. and it is not known on which of them [ the bright spot J has spreadJ. Whether [we deal] with one man or with two men-it is clean. K. R. cAqiva says, "On one man, it is unclean, and on two men, it is clean." M. 5:4

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :4-5

97

A. Once it has been subjected to uncleanness, its [ condition of] doubt is unclean [ = M. 5:4CJ. B. How so? C. Two who came to a priestD. On this is a bright spot the size of a split bean, and on this [a bright spot the size of] about a se!t,-· E. At the end of a week, on this [ lhe bright spot is the size of] a sela and a bit more, and on this one [a bright spot is the size of} about a sela and a bit moreF. They are both unclean. G. Even though both return to the size of a sela and of a sela, they are both unclean, H. unless they [both] return to the size of a split bean. I. This is the case concerning which they have said, "Once it has been subjected to uncleanness, its [ condition of] doubt is unclean." M. 5:5

We deal first with M. 5 :4. The standard generalization, A, is augmented with the qualification, in the first inst,nne. That is to say, at the first inspection of the bright spot, if we have a doubt, we resolve the doubt in the person's favor. B then redundantly clarifies the qualifying clause. Resolution in favor of cleanness comes before a decision, in the first inspection, has been made for uncleanness. C simply reverses A-B. D joins A-C to the case. T. 2:7D-E have already interpreted M. 5 :4A in the same way. The case itself is clear. The doubt is that we do not know on which person the bright spot has spread. Yet the case is curiously inappropriate. For A-C speak of the first inspection, and the case refers us to the inspection at the end of the first week. Not only so, but J contradicts E. E has told us explicitly that two people are under inspection, and J says we resolve the matter in favor of cleanness whether there are two men or only one. J obviously has been introduced to take account of K, cAqiva's distinction. And it is an cAqivan hand that has added J, because without that clause, cAqiva's position is out of phase with E-I. In fact the case, E-H, illustrates C, not A-B, parallel to the case of M. 5: 5 ( !) . C docs not limit the matter to the first inspection, and the case specifies we deal with the second, at the end of the first week. cAqiva's comment should deal with two spots, not the two men of E-G, thus "Two bright spots," then H, dropping "on this one," and replacing it with ''this one," and then J is appropriate, and K will be a natural conclusion. We see, therefore, that the revision of the original dispute by the cAqivans has not included revising the terms of the case. 7

98

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:4-5

But if so, the case serves M. 5:5 better than it does M. 5:4A-B. Indeed the case of M. 5:4 is to the case of M. 5:5 as 'Aqavya's definition of residuary hair is to 'Aqiva's! Th~t is, it is the pme case, slightly imprqi"'edand made more precise. M. 5':4D= M. 5:~F-G, M. 5:4,E = M. 5:liH. M. 5:41 tells us what is obvious. The sole difference is at M. 5:5F, therefore, which simply adds what M. 5:4C = M. 5:5A demands. The cases therefore serve the same issue-and M. 5:5 contradicts cAqiva of M. 5 :4K, the sole reason for the case! M. 5:5 thus repeats M. 5:4C. The case, as I said, is the one to which cAqiva has already referred in M. 5:4K. We have two men, two spots. The difference from the foregoing is that now one spot is the size of a split bean, the other the size of a sela. Thus the one which was originally the size of a sela has returned to its original size and the man should be clean. But since we do not know which is which -this· is not specified, therefore M. 5 :41 is taken for granted-we declare both unclean. H now completes the rule. If both return to the size of the split bean, then both clearly are clean; the one originally the size of the sela is actually reduced in size, and the one originally the size of a bean has returned to its original condition. Since this has not happened, both have been subjected to uncleanness, and doubt as to which has lost its spreading results in the decision of uncleanness. What has happened to 'Aqiva? He obviously will have ruled that, with two men, the spot is clean. This has come in the context of a doubt concerning plagues before a ruling has been given (M. 5:4A-B), and is the redactor's way of harmonizing matters and placing cAqiva in the best possible light. In fact, why should 'Aqiva not reject the case of M. 5 :5 and hold the men clean? The cases are exactly the same. M. 5:5F cannot change that fact. For why should M. 5:4H+I not be followed by a similar statement, as at M. 5 :5E, which repeats the essentials of the situation? After all, nothing has changed in the statement of the cases, except the addition of sela and a bit more and; within the problem before us, the bit more changes nothing. Only M. 5:5F should be at issue! Accordingly, the original case of M. 5:5 was no different from the one of M. 5 :4, except for the addition of and a bit more; this is parallel to 'Aqiva's revision of M. 5:3's "residuary hair." There he said he conceded the sages' viewpoint in respect to 'Aqavya's definition, but offered his improvement to save the point that residuary hair is unclean. What was that improvement? It was the specification of the requisite size of the original bright spot, the inclusion of two hairs

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5:4-5

99

(though "white hair'' normally means "two white hairs,'' as MA points out in M. 5: 3), and the specification that part of the original spot remains throughout. His changes hardly make a new definition. Here likewise adding and a bit more tells us that spreading has occurred in both items. Both should be unclean. One-the one the size of the split bean to begin with-has surely been made unclean. What about the other? His spot was the size of a sela; it spread to a sela and a bit more; then it came back to a sela. It was never so small as a split beart. Perhaps cAqiva would hold that the larger size of the original bright spot is what matters; spreading simply has augmented an already large primary sign. The man is not definitely unclean; but there are grounds, those supplied by the originally larger-than-normal size of his spot, to think he might be unclean. There is not much of a doubt here. But if our analysis is correct, that should hardly matter, since the cases are one and the same and illustrate a matter quite different from M. 5:4A-C = M. 5:5A. M. 5:5F forces the two into a single framework, and the rest follows. A.

Two bright spots;. one is quarantined, and one is certified [uncleanJ, 2. one is quarantined and one is to be quarantined, 3. one is to be quarantined, and one is to be certified, 4. one is quarantined, and one is certified, 5. one is quarantined, and one is clean, B. [if] one erred and does not know which is first and which is secondhe is clean C. Two bright spots1. one is certified, and one is to be certified, 2. one is to be certified, and one is to be shut up, 3. one is certified, and one is shut up, 4. one is certified, and one is cleanD. if one erred and does not know which is first and which is secondhe is unclean. T. 3:12 (Tos. W & R p. 159, ls. 18-21, p. 160, k 1-4) 1.

Sens, whose version I have translated, explains that one of the spots is the size of a split bean and one is the size of a sela, and at the end of the second week, both are the size of a sela. One is now awaiting clearance, and one is awaiting certification. Since we do not know which has spread, the man is clean until both are the size of a sela. "One is shut up and one is to be shut up" ( 2), for example, involves

100

NEGAIM CHAPTER FIVE

5 :4-5

a case in which one spot is the size of a bean, and at the end of the second week, another spot the size of a bean appears in the man. The first is supposed to be cleared, and the second is supposed to be shut up. We do not know which is which, and the man is clear. "One is to be shut up and one is to be certified" ( A3) is, for instance, a case of two spots, one the size of a bean, one the size of a sela. At the end of a week both are the size of a sela, for one is now awaiting shutting up for a second week, and the other is awaiting certification. Since we do not know which is which, the man is clean. ''One is to be shut up and one is clean" ( A4), is, for instance, as in the case in which we have a spot the size of a split bean, which has been shut up two weeks and been declared clean, and afterward another the size of a bean appears, and the two are mixed up. The man is clean. The various other cases are readily spelled out in terms of these examples; in C all the spots are unclean to begin with. Now, in accord with M., doubt is resolved in favor of uncleanness, just as A's, before the man is subject to uncleanness at all, are ruled clean. On other versions, see TR III, pp. 1 77.

CHAPTER SIX

NEGAJM CHAPTER SIX Chapter Six begins with a fundamental law on the size of the bright spot and of the quick flesh (not explicitly named). It contains no attributions or attestations, but, since it serves as a prologue for the construction of M. 6:2-4, it may be linked to that composite. M. 6:2-4 present a set of problems, therefore a group of apocopated sentences, by contrast to the declarative sentences of which M. 6:1 is formed. Now we have a bright spot of requisite size, the size of a split bean, and quick flesh of requisite size, that is, a lentil in area. Accordingly, M. 6:2 begins where M. 6:1 has left off. Then, in the expected apotopation, we set up a series of conditions. Since M. 6:2 speaks of the bright spot and quick flesh of requisite size, M. 6:3 will have the bright spot of requisite size and quick flesh of less than requisite size, and M. 6:4 will have both the spot and the flesh larger than the requisite size. The issue of M. 6:2-4 is whether the plague spreads within itself, that is, whether the diminution of the quick flesh by the bright spot is a sign of uncleanness. Meir's view is that it is, and the sages hold it is not. The entire composite, M. 6:1-4, therefore, is Ushan. M. 6:5-6 set up a new special problem, a bright spot, surrounded by quick flesh, with another bright spot outside of the quick flesh. Meir's principle about whether a bright spot spreads within itself is examined from a different perspective by Simeon and Y ose. Y ose glosses the rule. M. 6:5F-H present a dispute between Gamaliel and . cAqiva on the same problem, which shows that cAqiva and Yose are of the same view. Then, in M. 6:6, Simeon revises the dispute of cAqiva and Gamaliel to prove that cAqiva agrees with Simeon and disagrees with Yose. We clearly have a Yavnean dispute which has undergone substantial editorial work on the part of Ushans. In fact, several issues are brought together. One is whether, when we have the original problem, the bright spot surrounded by quick flesh which is further surrounded by a bright spot, we treat the whole as a single bright spot (Y ose) or as two spots ( 1). Then we suppose we do treat the spots separately, and so we ask ( 2) about the relationship of the quick flesh to the two bright spots. Do we regard the quick flesh as a single item, or do we split it too between the inner

102

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6: 1

and the outer spot. Finally, we suppose we do treat the quick flesh as split and as serving two spots and ask about the disposition of the quick flesh. The entire construction therefore contains a Yavnean substratum and two Ushan versions, plus Meir's restatement of how the problem is to be analyzed. It unfolds with logical precision as well as meticulous care for form and precise formulation. M. 6:7 lists places which are not marked as unclean if we have a bright spot surrounding quick flesh. The point is that the quick flesh on these particular places is not a mark of uncleanness. M. 6:8 gives us an equivalent list, twelve items against the twenty-four of the foregoing list, places which to begin with are not subject to uncleanness because of the appearance of a bright spot. Judah glosses M. 6:7, and Eliezer does so as well. We do not know for sure which Eliezer is before us. Judah's gloss certainly is external to the primary list, which rejects it. So M. 6:7 A-E is a complete list, attested by the dispute between Judah, M. 6:7G, and an anonymous saying in M. 6:7F, and with a further complete sentence in the name of Eliezer at M. 6:7H. I am inclined to see the list as Ushan. M. 6:8 contains no attributions or attestations. Perhaps its list is prior to M. 6:7's. It does contain the formulary language; M. 6:8K, M-N, familiar in M. 1:5-6. But we have no means of decisively assigning M. 1 :5-6 to a particular stratum, though it seems to be Y avnean. On the other hand, M. 7: 1 contains strong reason to suppose Eliezer b. Jacob is not going to be wholly contented with the formulation of M. 6:8, and perhaps that is ground to suppose the segment of M. 6:8's composite beginning at M. 6:8K is ultimately Ushan. But the primary list, M. 6:8A-J, cannot be assigned to a specific circle or stratum. 6:1 A. The body [ requisite space] of the bright spot is ( not less than] a Cilician split bean squared. [Danby: "The space of a Bright Spot must be (not less than) a square with sides the length of a Cilician split bean."] B. The place [ spaceJ of the split bean is nine lentils. The place [space] of lentil is four hairs. It comes out thirty six hairs [ arranged in a square]. M. 6:1

The definition, given in A, is spelled out in B, the whole in simple declarative sentences. If a bright spot is less than the specified size, it is not subject to uncleanness. The spot must be square, not round,

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:1-4

103

six hairs in length, six in breadth. The present rule introduces what is to follow. Each item of M. 6:2-5 begins with "a bright spot the size of a split bean," then sets up a problem or condition. The same requirement-a square area-applies to quick flesh, the measure of which is a lentil. Quick flesh contaminates when it is one-ninth the size of the bright spot. M. 1 :5-6 of course depend on these rules. 6:2-4 A. B. C. D.

A bright spot the size of a split beanand in it is quick flesh the size of a lentilthe bright spot grew larger-it is unclean. It grew smaller [than a split bean]-it is clean. E. The quick flesh grew largerF. it is unclean [C, Bert., Rosh, Maimonides, MA, and PB: clean]. G. It grew smaller-it is clean. M. 6:2 A.

A bright spot the size of a split bean,

B. and in it is quick flesh less than the size of a lentilC. the bright spot grew larger-it is unclean [because of spreading]. D. It grew smaller-it is clean. E. The quick flesh grew larger-it is unclean. F. It grew smaller [because the bright spot has expanded into its territory JG. R. Meir declares unclean (for the bright spot has spread]. H. And sages declare clean, I. for the plague-mark does not spread within itself [ so this is not spreading, which can only take place on the outer perimeter of the spot].

M. 6:3 A. A bright spot larger than a split beanB. and in it is quick flesh larger than a lentilC. they grew larger, or they grew smaller-they are unclean, D. on condition that they not grow smaller than the prescribed measure. M. 6:4

The apocopated form is followed in all three examples. We are given the specifications of the bright spot (A), then the quick flesh (B), then the rule applying to the case in which A expanded, then contracted; then in which B expanded and contracted. M. 6:3 at this point gives us a dispute, integral to the construction. The sages' opinion preserves the established form. M. 6:4 concludes, joining A to B and treating both as a unit. 6:4D adds what is obvious, to complete matters.

104

NEGAIM

CHAPTER

STX

6:2-4

The case of M. 6:2 is simple. We have a bright spot of requisite size and quick flesh of requisite size. If the spot spread, it is unclean, and if it diminished to less than the requisite size, it is clean, so too is the rule for the c.1uickflesh. But C is redundant; a bright spot joined by quick flesh of requisite size in both instances is unclean even without spreading (Rosh). The rnsc of E assumes that the quick flesh grew larger while remaining inside the bright spot. PB's reading, cle,m, would apply to a case in ,vhich the c.1uickflesh spread outside of the bright spot, so it no longer is encompassed by the spot [ = M. 4: 3]. If the quick flesh grew small er than the requisite size, it of course is clean. M. 6:3 changes the situation in B. Now we have quick flesh of less than requisite size. C-D contain no surprises. If the bright spot spread, it is unclean. If it did not diminish, it still would be clean; the quick flesh is not of requisite size. E is likewise to be expected. If the quick flesh reached requisite size, the spot is marked as unclean. If it diminished in size, we have the dispute of G-I. What happens when the c1uickflesh diminishes in size? The bright spot spreads into it. Meir says that while the quick flesh less than a lentil is not regarde,l as quick flesh, the bright spot ht1.1 spread. Since we have spreading, the spot is unclean. The sages' opinion is that spreading must be outward, not inward. Here we have spreading in the bright spot, not spreading outward, at the circumference of the plague, on to the outer, healthy flesh. The issue, then, is the nature of the spreading of the bright spot. The last case gives us a bright spot and a lentil larger than the requisite size. \'vhatever happens to either, they are unclean. \ivhy? Because ,,t all events we have the requisite measure. M. 6:4 thus brings us back to M. 6:2. 6:2D and F have already told us that if the bright spot and quick flesh grew to less than requisite size, they are clean. I assume M. 6:4 is introduced, therefore, solely to complete a triad of rules, which our tractate clearly prefers. A.

B. C.

D. E. F. G.

H. I.

A bright spotand in it is quick flesh less than the size of a lentilR. Meir says, "Let him be shut up.'' And sages say, "They are not subjected to it." [If] the bright spot gre,v larger, it is shut up. [If] it diminished, it is clean. [If] the quick flesh grew bger, it is unclean. [If] it grew smaller-R. Meir declares unclean,

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:2-6

105

for the plague spread into its own midst. And sages declare clean, K. for the plague does not spread into its own midst. T. 2:8 (Tos. W & R p. 154, ls. 12-16)

J.

T. supplements M. 6:3. T.A and B are identical to M. 6:3A-B. According to T., Meir holds that even though the quick flesh is of less than requisite size, the man is shut up. The sages regard the quick flesh as of no account. Meir says it joins with the plague to require quarantine. C-D are missing in M., which does not consider the case except in regard to the growth or diminution of the quick flesh and bright spot. So T. supplies a dispute on a point not considered in M. T.E-F parallel M.C-D, except that T. says if the spot grew larger -to requisite size-then the man is shut up. This is significant only for the sages; Meir does not demand spreading before quarantine (Sens). M. says if it grew larger, we have spreading. Since M. says if the bright spot grew larger, the man is unclean, this would seem to represent the second stage of Meir's opinion in T. Having shut the man up at the first appearance of the quick flesh of less than requisite size, Meir can reasonably now declare him unclean. M,; by contrast, lacks the stage of quarantine, but declares the. man unclean. T.F and M.D agree that if the spot diminished, it is clean. Then we turn to the quick flesh. T. 2 :8G confirms the reading for M. 6:3E, unclean, or M. has been corrected to conform to T.'s view of the matter. If it grew smaller, we have the same dispute as in M., except that Meir's reason-simply the opposite of that of the sagesnow is spelled out. But this is a needless improvement, for Meir's reason is obvious from a reading of the sages' view (M. 6:31 =

T. 2:8K). For a somewhat more elaborate version, see Sens to M. 6:4 and " TR III, p. 171.

6:5-6 A. B. C.

A bright spot the size of a split beanand quick flesh the size of a lentil surrounds itand outside of the quick flesh is a bright spotthe inner is to be shut up [having as yet no token of unclean-

D. ness], and the outer is to be certified unclean { since · raw flesh grows inside it]. [We have a single bright spot, which encompasses the quick flesh.] E. Said R. Y ose, "The quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the [inner] bright spot is inside it."

106

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

[Danby: "Is encompassed by it."] F. It [the quick flesh] grew smaller and went away-G. Rabban Gamaliel says, 1. "If it disappeared from the inner one [on the inner side], it is a sign of spreading for the inner one [which has covered the quick flesh], but the outer one is dean [ since it has lost its quick flesh]. 2. "And if [it disappeared] from the outer one [side], the outer one is clean [ spreading inward is not a token of uncleanness}, and the inner one, [not having diminished], is to be shut up." H. R. cAqiva says, "One way or the other, it [the i1mer onethere is no disagreement on the outer, so Bert., MA; Sens, Tos. 2:9F: the ottter one J is clean."

M. 6:5 I. Said R. Simeon, "When [ is the inner one clean} ? When it is the size of a lentil exactly (MWff'T). (Danby: "This applies only if the quick flesh was the very size of the lentil applied thereto."] J. "It was greater than a lentilK. "the excess is a token of spreading for the inner one (if it covered the lentil], and the outer one is unclean [because it surrounds l1uick flesh J. L. "It was a tetter less than a lentil--M. "it is a sign of spreading for the inner one, and there is no sign of spreading for the outer one." M. 6:6 The complex of M. 6:5-6 is to be divided into A-D, a complete statement of the law in modified apocopation characteristic of our tractate, then E, Yose's dispute with D, phrased as a gloss. F-H are (superficially) entirely autonomous of E and must be assumed, because of the attributions, to come before E. I then supplies a further difference of opinion, this time a gloss of H. So Simeon attests F-H. J-M revert to A-D, the original problem, but in fact focus on H and continue I. In A we have a bright spot of requisite size, and (B) this is surrounded by an outer square of quick flesh. C then specifies still a third area, a further square of a bright spot, so three squares, the inner of a bright spot, intermediate, of quick flesh, and outside this flesh, another bright spot. D states the rule. The bright spot in the inside (middle) is to be shut up for a week's quarantine. Why? Because it does not contain the mark of definitive uncleanness. It does not encompass quick flesh. The outer bright spot, however, contains within itself the required token of uncleanness constih1ted by the quick flesh. This is definitely unclean.

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

107

E rejects this decision. Y ose takes account of the inner spot. He does not see it as one whole spot. The quick flesh indeed is surrounded by a bright spot. But it itself contains a bright spot. Quick flesh divided into two parts is clean. So Y ose' s interest is in the intermediate square. Yose's gloss in this case must come after D, and cannot be contemporaneous with it, since F-H have been attached to a complete statement of law, continued in I-M, which ignore Yose. That law can have been either as in D or as in E, surely the former. A-D, attached as they are to the Yavnean dispute of F-H, which itself depends upon A-D, may be assumed to derive from Yavneh. Or Simeon stands behind the whole. The dispute of F-H has the quick flesh disappear. This is a sign of spreading, in Gamaliel's view. It means the inner bright spot has spread outward over the place formerly occupied by the quick flesh. But the outer spot is not assumed to have spread inward. cAqiva differs and says the disappearance of the quick flesh marks the whole-including the inner spot-as clean. Why? Because he sees the construction as a single bright spot ( as in A-D) , which now has lost its quick flesh. Gamaliel and cAqiva agree ( against Meir's view, M. 6: 3), that a plague does not spread inward, within itself, but only outward. Therefore the inner bright spot will not exhibit spreading. The outer no longer surrounds quick flesh; it obviously is clean, as Gamaliel says. Simeon (I) qualifies cAqiva's opinion. If the quick flesh is exactly the size of a lentil, and if the quick flesh disappears, then cAqiva will rule the whole mark clean. But if the quick flesh was greater than a lentil ( resuming the apocopation in which cases are stated), Simeon says, and the inner spreads over part of it, the excess does serve as a token that the inner bright spot has spread. The outer bright spot still surrounds the quick flesh. It too is unclean. That is, if the excess over the lentil diminishes from the inner bright spot and turns into part of the bright spot, leaving behind quick flesh the size of a lentil, then the inner bright spot is unclean because it has spread over the area formerly occupied by the part ("excess") of the bright spot'. The excess of the quick flesh is not regarded as a plague but flesh (Rosh, MS). Then the inner has spread outward, over flesh, and not over a plague-mark. And the outer is unclean simply because it surrounds the remainder of the quick flesh as in A-D. Simeon rejects ,Yose's opinion in E, but that is not the clearcut purpose of his saying. L resumes the anonymous statement. But it follows Simeon's inter-

as

1.08

NEG.AIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-(i

pretation of cAqiva (H). We have an inner bright spot, then a tetter, then an outer bright spot, and no quick flesh in-between. The inner spot has spread, and the tetter is marked by dim white. Even less, of such colored matter, than a lentil is regarded as a tetter. The tetter is assumed to diminish-thus the problem presupposes F, consequently F-I. The inner bright spot is assumed to have spread outward. The outer has not spread (M). The bright spot on the inside is supposed, therefore, to have spread over the tetter. The inner bright spot is unclean because of spreading. This will be cAc.1iva·sopinion, since the inner has spread not into another plague-area but into flesh (the tetter). If the outer spread into the tettcr, it is clean; spreading inward is not regarded as spreading. This develops the position of cAqiva; Gamaliel obviously will agree even for c1uickflesh, all the more so for a tetter, for in fact in M all we have is G 1. To summarize: Several separate issues have been combined in this complex pericope. The first is the problem of a bright spot, surrounded by quick flesh, which itself is surrounded by a bright spot. Do we treat these as separate bright spots, each with its own relationship to the c1uickflesh, or do we treat them as a single bright spot? Yose's view is that we have a single bright spot; we do not take account of the fact that inside the large, outer spot-the only one he wishes to reckon with-there is another. Y ose' s opinion on the surface is separate from the remainder. The second issue, presupposing that we do treat the spots separately, is at A-D. What is the relationship of the quick flesh to the two bright spots? It affects both the inner and the outer spot. The inner is to be shut up, however, not because of the quick flesh--that is no issuebut because of not having spread. The other, outer spot is certainly unclean. It enjoys the full affect of the quick flesh. The third issue has to do with the division of the quick flesh. Just as we have assumed the two spots arc separate and distinct from one another, so (F-H) we assume the quick flesh also is to be divided in half so as to serve both the inner and the outer spot, a logical consequence of our fundamental presupposition. Gamaliel makes this distinction in holding tlut, if the quick flesh disappeared on the inner side, that is, on the side of the inner spot, the meaning is that the inner spot has spread outward and is unclean. The outer spot is clean, however, having lost quick flesh. If it spread on the outer side, the outer spot is now dean; it has not spread but has lost part of its spot. The inner one has not diminished in any way; it still is quaran-

NBGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

109

tined. cAqiva can refer, I think, only to the inner spot. Since he declares clean, in both instances, and since Gamaliel agrees the outer spot is clean in both instances of G, and since cAqiva says "it is clean," he can differ only from a ruling which holds the inner spot is unclean. What is cAqiva's position? It turns out to be parallel to Yose's at E. Why? He sees the whole as a single bright spot. To him the entire antecedent construction therefore is alien. Yose's view in E, that the quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the outer one, since the inner orie is inside it, is now turned on its head ( or, more accurately, Yose has turned cAqiva' s position upside down) . The construction being a single bright spot, disappearance of the quick flesh in the middle means the whole is clean. "'Quick flesh is not a sign of uncleanness for the inner one, since the outer bright spot is outside it'' -that is how Y ose might have phrased matters. But he need not bother, since quick flesh must be encompassed by the bright spot to be a token of uncleanness. Simeon will now ask us to revise our interpretation of the case of cAqiva's declaring the inner spot clean. He says that to begin with, the quick flesh was the size of a lentil exactly. If it was greater than a lentil, and if it diminished to the size of a lentil, then the quick flesh has been overspread by the inner bright spot, which thus has spread; and the outer one is marked as unclean by the quick flesh the size of a lentil which has survived the spreading. It is difficult to see how Simeon has accepted cAqiva's original point. cAqiva has claimed that we do not divide the quick flesh; we do not divide the bright spot either. Simeon now asks us to believe that cAqiva's principle is the opposite. We do divide the quick flesh, if it is larger than a lentil and is reduced through spreading of the inner spot to (merely) the size of a lentil. Accordingly, Simeon wishes to revise the implications of cAqiva' s ruling. Does cAqiva rule on whether we regard the two spots as separate or as a single spot? Of course he does, Simeon says, insisting that cAqiva's ruling applies to a case in which the quick flesh now is less than requisite size! But if the quick flesh is of requisite size, then «of course" cAqiva will agree the inner spot is unclean, and we do regard the two spots as distinct from one another. Accordingly, what Simeon really tells us is that he disagrees with Y ose. A. B. C.

D.

A bright spot the size of a split beanand quick flesh the size of a lentil encompasses itand outside of the quick flesh is a bright spotand this quick flesh diminishes, and it becomes a bright spot-

110

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-6

E. R. Gamaliel says, 1. "If it grew small on the inside, the inside is to be certified, and the outside is clean (following GRA, instead of: to be shut up]. 2. "If it is on the outside, the inside is to be shut up and the outside is clean." F. R. cAqiva says, "One way or the other, "the inside is to be shut up, and the outside is clean. G. 1. "If it is because of spreading, they do not take account of the inside, for the plague does not spread into the midst of the plague. 2. "If it is because of spreading [Sens: quick flesh], they do not take account of the outside, for the bright spot is in the midst of it." T. 2:9 (Tos. W&R p. 154, Is. 17-21, p. 155, Is. 1-3)

Our suggestion on the interpolation of M. 6: 5D- E is confirmed by T., which goes directly from the introductory statement of the problem, T.A-C, to the conundrum before Gamaliel and cAqiva, T.D, which thus gives us M. 6:5A-C, then M. 6:5F. The problem is the same. We have a bright spot in the middle, then quick flesh as a second square, and then a bright spot as a third, surrounding the quick flesh. The quick flesh diminishes in favor of the bright spot. Gamaliel's opinion is the same as in M. If the quick flesh disappeared from the inner side, it is a sign that the inner spot has spread, so it is to be certified unclean; but the outer one is clean. If the quick flesh diminishes on the side toward the outer spot, then that is a sign that the outer side is diminishing, so is clean. But the inner spot is shut up, just as in M. cAqiva' s opinion is what is spelled out. · F does not repeat M. 6:5H. It has cAqiva say the same: "One way or the other." That is, it cites M. But this is spelled out quite differently. M. 6:5H follows with it is clean. T. says M. means the outer one is clean. Why? The inside invariably is to be shut up. Only the outer spot is declared clean. This can be harmonized with M. only if it is clean in M. is understood to ref er to the outer spot. The reasons are given in G. If the issue is spreading, the inside one is going to be clean, there being no spreading into a spot. If it is because of quick flesh, G2 continues, the outside one is clean, for it has a bright spot inside it, just as in M. 6:5E. G thus explains perfectly well cAqiva's ruling in M., but it contradicts cAqiva's saying in T.F. T. represents cAqiva in agreement with Yose, M. 6:5E, against D. This is carefully worked out; only if the two spots are viewed as one is T. 2 :9G sensible. A. B.

R. Simeon said, "When [ do J the words of R. cAqiva [apply)? "When it is the size of a lentil exactly (MKWWNT).

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:5-7

111

C. "[If] it was greater than a lentilD. "and this additional amount of quick flesh grew smaller, and was made into a bright spotE. "if it is on the insideF. "the inside is diminished on account of the spreading, and the outside [is diminished] on account of its quick flesh. [So the inner is certified, and the outer is unclean.J G. "If it is on account of the quick flesh on the outside, the inner side is to be shut up [since it has not spread], and the outside is to be certified." T. 2:10 (Tos. W & R p. 155, ls. 4-8)

T. clarifies M. 6:6I's MWB,T with MKWWNT, exactly. Then B repeats M. 6:6I. C repeats M. 6:6J. D then supplies what M.J lacks -a statement that the quick flesh diminishes, which M. obviously takes for granted. Then T.E repeats M. 6:6K, adding the view of the outer spot, and G goes over M. 6:6K's reference to the outer spot. Said R. Y osah, "These are the words of R. I:fanina b. Gamaliel, but I ·say concerning both of them that the outside is clean, for I regard the bright spot as if the boil is in the place of the quick flesh." T. 2:11 (Tos. W &R p. 155, ls. 9-11)

We regard the inner bright spot as a boil; quick flesh in a boil is clean. Accordingly, Yose rejects the whole picture of M. 6:5A-D, as in M., but T. supplies a reason not known to M. 6:5E.

6:7 A. Twenty-four tips of limbs in man [ excluding houses and clothing (MA) J which are not susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh [TYY: When there is quick flesh inside a bright spot]: B. the tips of the fingers of hands and [toes of the) feet [ = 20), C. and the tips of the ears [ 2), D. and the tip of the nose ( 1 ), E. and the tip of the penis ( 1 = 24). F. And the tips of the breasts which are in the woman [ = 26). G. R. Judah says, "Also of the man" [ = 28). H. R. Eliezer says, "Also the warts and the wens are not susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh." M. 6:7 (b. Qid. 25a)

+ + +

Our list of twenty-four items knows nothing of the dispute at F-G, for F. makes twenty-six, and G likewise adds to the list. H is entirely separate from the foregoing. A speaks of tips of limbs, Eliezer of another matter. H is a good gloss, since ,p is appropriate joining language; Eliezer then attests A-E, and F-G do not. The items listed,

112

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6: 7

B-E, are integral to the superscription, for obvious reasons. The point of the list is that if a plague with quick flesh occurs on one of these, the person is not unclean. The exegetical basis is found at Lev. 13:3. The .priest has to see the entire spot, and these items, which are regarded as comparable to the bright spot, to which Lev. 13:3 refers, are convex and spread over the pointed surfaces, so they cannot be examined all at once. H's items also are convex. Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 3:7-8) treats M. 6:5-7 as a unity: "If there is a bright spot the size of a bean and outside it and encompassing it there is raw flesh the size of a lentil or larger, and encompassing the raw flesh there is a second bright spot, then the inner bright spot requires that the bearer be shut up, since there is yet in it no token of uncleanness, while the outer bright spot must be adjudged unclean, since there is raw flesh within it. If the raw flesh between them grows smaller or wholly disappears, whether. it fades away and grows smaller on the inner side or grows smaller on the outer side, both are like one bright spot containing no token of uncleanness. [8} If there is a bright spot on the tip of any member of the body, with quick flesh in the middle of that bright spot, it is not a token of uncleanness, since the quick flesh divides the leprosy sign so that one part of it spread down over one side of the member, and another part of it spreads down over the other side; for of leprosy signs it is said, 'And the priest shall see it' (Lev. 13:3)-implying that he must be able to see the whole of the leprosy sign at one time." Accordingly, Maimonides sees M. 6:7's rule as parallel, in its way, to the divided leprosy sign of M. 6:5-6. A. Twenty-four tips of limbs are in man, and they are not made unclean because of quick flesh. B. And if their place has a flat space the size of a split bean [Maimonides, Uncleannessof Leprosy 3:9], lo, they are made unclean through plagues. C. R. Leazar says, "The corns (MSMRWT) and the wens and the warts are not made unclean because of quick flesh. But if their plate has a flat space the size of a split bean, lo, they are subject to uncleanness through plagues." D. R. Yose b. R. Judah says, "[If) a bright spot was near the head, the eye, and the ear, and the nose, and the mouth, it is clean, as it is said, 'And the priest shall see the plague on the flesh of the skin' (Lev. 13:3)-meaning that it must be wholly on the surface of the skin of the flesh and susceptible of spreading." E. [ A bright spot even the requisite the size of] a split bean on the tip of his nose, spreading down this way and that-

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:7-8

113

F. one about the size of a split bean on the tip of his finger, spreading this way and thatG. it is clean, as it is said, "And he shall see it"-the whole of it at one instant. T. 2:12 (Tos. W & R p. 155, ls. 12-20, p. 156, ls. 1-2)

T. does little more than gloss M. It has its own formulation at 11. for M. 6:7 A, omits M.'s list of the twenty-four. T.B substitutes with a good clarification. T.C and M. 6:7H are the same, except for the addition of MSMRWT and the repetition of T.'s former qualification. Yose, D, provides his own rule, and at the same time explains the entire construction. E-G develop this same point. What Y ose thus adds are places in the body which are similar to the tips of the limbs in that they cannot be entirely examined at a single glance.

6:8 A. These are places in man which are not susceptible to uncleanness because of a bright spot: B. ( 1) inside the eye, ( 2) inside the ear, ( 3) inside the nose, ( 4) inside the mouth; C. (5) [V, C, K omit:] the wrinkles [in the body (Rosh)]; D. ( 6) and the wrinkles of the neck; E. (7) under the breast; F. (8) and the armpit; G. (9) the sole of the foot; H. ( 10) the nails. I. (11) The head, J. (12) and the beard. K. The boil, and the burning, and the blister that are festering [ not covered by a scab], L. (1) are not susceptible to uncleanness because of plagues; and (2) do not join together with plagues; and (3) the plague does not spread into them; and ( 4) they are not susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh; and ( 5) they do not hinder [ the cleanness of] the one who turns entirely white. M. The head and the beard went and became bald, N. the boil, and the burning, and the blister [ went J and formed a scar, 0. (1) lo, these are susceptible to uncleanness through plagues. (2) But they do not join together with plagues, and (3) the plague does not spread into them; and ( 4) they are not susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh; (5) but they do hinder [the cleanness of] the one who turns wholly white. 8

114

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:8

P. The head and the beard before they have grown hair, and the wens on the head or the beard, are adjudged like the skin of the flesh. M. 6:8 (b. Ar. 18b, b. Qid. 25a)

A-J correspond to M. 6:7Aff. Having been given places in man which are not susceptible because of quick flesh, now we have places insusceptible because of a bright spot. We are not told the exact number. If it is twelve (B-J inclusive), then the connection to the foregoing is obvious. But I-J seem to belong with K-P. K-P form a quite separate unit. The contrast is between Kand M-N. The five items of L correspond to the five of 0. P then returns us to K and M-N, taking for granted the five issues of L and O without spelling out the five items. So the contrast in L and O is at L1, for which L has the negative; 2, for which O has the negative; 3, shared by both; 4, shared by both; and 5 for which L has the negative. The two groups are verbally identical except at the designated points. P of course is assumed entirely affirmative on the five items. The structure, K-P, is--as usual in our tractate-very carefully formed. The point of A-J is that if we have a bright spot in any of the listed places, this is not taken into account, because these are not "skin of the flesh," but are covered up and regarded as privy. C refers to wrinkles of the body, and D specifies its own area. K refers to a festering boil, burning, or blister. In none do we have scar-tissue; none is healed. Lev. 13:18-19 says the boil is to be healed; Lev. 13:24 is interpreted to mean that so long as there is no sign of healing, the flesh does not receive a plague-mark. This is applied likewise to the blister. All are insusceptible; spots thereon are clean. L spells out the consequences. To these items, the matter of plagues simply does not apply. If a plague in the flesh is not of requisite size, a plague on one of these sorts of skin, next to the plague on the skin, cannot be seen to complete the requisite size. If the plague on the flesh spreads into one of these, this is not regarded as .a token of uncleanness through spreading. These areas are insusceptible. They are not regarded as unclean if quick flesh arises in them. If any of these marks occurs on a person who has turned entirely white, this does not prevent his being declared clean. This spells out what is obvious at Ll. M now introduces a new item, interpolated and out of place, except for I-J.The counterpart of Lis N; that is, the boil, burning, and blister no longer fester but form a scar. As to M, we have a bald spot in the head or beard. The normal skin of the body thus has appeared in part,

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:8

115

but not entirely. The problem of N is that the aforementioned signs have given some evidence of healing. What is the rule? Now the specified area is susceptible to uncleanness through plagues. But they do not join together, just as at L2. And spreading does not enter them, which follows logically from ( 2) and ignores ( 1). Likewise is the case with ( 4). But ( 5) the appearance of these signs is partial evidence of the presence of plague, and therefore if one of them appears on a person who has turned entirely white, he is not declared clean. The specified items, therefore, are not wholly normal skin, but they also are not wholly excluded from the processes of plague. Nos. 1 and 5 treat them as normal skin, and Nos. 2-4 exclude them. P's point is obvious, clarifying I-J+M. In all respects spots on the head and beard which have never grown hair are regarded as normal flesh. They are susceptible to uncleanness of plagues; they do join together with plagues; plague does spread into them; they are susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh; and the appearance of a plague on them will hinder the uncleanness of one who turns white. The group, K-P, therefore treats three sorts of phenomena, K-L, items wholly outside of the framework of plagues; M-0, items partially inside, and partially outside the framework of plagues; and P, items wholly inside the framework of plagues. A. A bright spot is on [ coversJ all of him, but on his head is living fleshB. a bright spot is on his foot, but over all of him is living fleshC. or there was on him a bright spot running above to below like a belt of living flesh, encompassing him about in the centerD. he is clean, as it is said, "And there is quick raw flesh in the swelling" (Lev. 13:10)E. until the quick flesh is encompassed in the midst of the swelling. F. The red skin which is on the lips is adjudged like the private parts. G. And the fold of flesh which is spread open, lo, it is like the skin of the flesh in every respect. T. 2.13 (Tos. W & R p. 156, ls. 3-8)

T.A-E are autonomous. The passage relates in a general way to M. 6:8K-P, in particular the reference, at L5 and 05, to the affect of the boil, burning, blister on a person who has turned entirely white. Similarly, if a person turns entirely white, but a spot of living flesh is on his head, or he is entirely covered by quick flesh, and a bright spot is on his foot, and so with C, the man is clean. The specified

116

NEGAIM CHAPTER SIX

6:8

parts of the body are not affected, in accord with the list of M. 6:8Aff. and its parallel in T. What T. here does, therefore, is to show the link between the two pericopae of M. 6:8. M. 6:81 refers to the head, G to the foot. And the rest follows. But T.'s formulation is entirely its own, for the reason, D, is not the same as M.'s. F and G are similarly autonomous. F adds a detail omitted by M., and G tells us what is readily surmised. Once folded flesh (M. 6:8C, D) is spread open, it is treated as normal flesh.

CHAPTER SEVEN

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN The list with which Chapter Six concluded is now supplemented. M. 6:8 lists places on man which are not made unclean by a bright spot. M. 7:lA then adds bright spots which do not render anyone unclean. These are in two groups. M. 7:lA has four items. Then M. 7:1A5 lists five places, but this list is quickly shown to begin a new pericope, B-G, certainly Ushan. The problem is bright spots on the head, beard, then the festering boil, burning, and blister. If the head and beard lose their hair, or the boil, burning, and blister form a scab, then the bright spots thereon are clean. C returns us to the head and beard, but now we have a sequence of events. First, they have not put forth hair; then they put forth hair; but thereafter they become bald. Or, in the case of the boil, burning, and blister, we deal first with their condition before they form a scab, then they form a scab, and finally they produce quick flesh again. The dispute on this sequence of events involves Eliezer b. Jacob and sages. A close exegesis shows that we are back at M. 6:8K-O. The real issue turns out to be whether the boil, burning, and blister which form a scab are unclean or clean ( = M. 1:5-6). And the ultimate issue is whether we take account of changes which take place between examinations, that is, the issue on which cAqiva differs from sages. Accordingly, we seem to have a further Ushan formulation of· that primary question. M. 7:2 gives us a set of disputes, this time with Eleazar b. cAzariah, Eleazar J:Iisma, and cAqiva. cAqiva's position is the same as that given at M. 4:7. The problem is a change in the color of a bright spot. Does this mean we have a new bright spot? Eleazar b. cAzariah holds that once a spot is insusceptible before the period of susceptibility has begun, a new phenomenon occurring on the old bright spot is not taken into account; the spot is permanently clean. M. 7: 3 is an elegant construction, which tells us what we already know. Each element in the construction is carefully balanced, in number of syllables, in conception, and in word-choice, with another. The purpose, as with M. 6:1, is to provide a prologue for a composite which is to follow, in this case, M. 7:4-5, certainly Yavnean. The

118

NEG AIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1

issue is how we deal with the removal of tokens of uncleanness. cAqiva stresses that whatever happens before the actual inspection and certification is not taken into account. This is consistent with the view that we resolve doubts in favor of leniency before the decision, in favor of stringency thereafter. A further issue, M. 7:5, is how we dispose of a person who has deliberately removed the tokens of uncleanness. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus answers this question, against the opinion of sages. Yose attests the matter, and Judah provides still another Ushan attestation. The Ushans have their own principle, which is that the sinner cannot profit from his sin; this they naturally read into the Yavnean materials. Accordingly, M. 7:1-2 are probably an Ushan construction, and M. 7:3-5 present a Yavnean set, with some Ushan revisions of no fundamental consequence.

7:1 A.

[M, P: WJ These are clean bright spots: [Those J which were on him before the giving of the Torah, on the gentile, and he converted, 3. on the child, and it was born, 4. on a crease, and it was unfolded. 5. (a) On the head and (b) on the beard, (c) on the festering boil and (d) (on the) burning, and (e) (on the) blister [N: WBWRRYN; C: WBMWDRYN; P: WBMWRDYN; V: WBMWRRYN; PB: WRMWRDYN; M: BMWRYDYN; K: HMWDRYNJ. B. 1. The head and the beard went and became bald2. the boil and the burning and the blister went and formed a scab3. they are clean. C. 1. The head and the beard before they have put forth hair2. they put forth hair3. and became baldD. 1. the boil and the burning and tl1e blister before they have formed a scab2. they formed a scab3. and became quick flesh [again]E. R. Eliezer b. Jacob declares unclean, F. for at their beginning and at their end it is unclean. G. And sages declare clean. 1. 2.

M. 7:1

The copyists who add W, And these are, think that M. 7:1 continues M. 6:8. Formally they are surely right, for M. 6:8A tells us, ·"These are places on man which are not susceptible to uncleanness

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN 7:1

119

through the bright spot;" then M. 7:lA adds the obverse, "These are bright spots which are clean." Accordingly, the primitive pericope should have intended to list items insusceptible to uncleanness, either because of their location, or because of the traits of the person on whom they appear. This is the case for A 1-3 only, however, as we shall see when we examine the list, then compare it to M. 6:8°s equivalent items. The first item consists in a single clause, while the next three arc formed of a participial clause and a verb. Nos. 1-3 relate in substance, Nos. 2-4 in form-a tight construction. The first tells us that bright spots appearing on a person before the Torah was given are not subject to uncleanness. This derives from Lev. 13 :2, "\'vhcn there 11Jillbe... ," in the future. More a propos is item 2, a gentile who converted. This derives from the same conception; after conversion, the gentile becomes a man in the sense of Lev. 13:2. No. 3 presents the same idea. A child before birth is insusceptible; bright spots on the skin at birth are assumed to be examined only then, not supposed to be present before that point. So. Nos. l - ', essentially say the same thing. No. 4, we notice, contradicts T. 2: 13G, ,vhich says that a crease which is unfolded is like flesh in all respects. Then come the five items of No. 5. In all, therefore, the list has three types of items, Nos. 1- 3, the person not subject to the law, No. 4, and the five items of No. 5. The list is artificial, in the sense that, in order to reach the desired five items, the formulator has grouped matters not wholly comparable to one another. Let us now turn to the view contained in As. It is that bright spots appearing on the head, the beard, and the boil, burning, and blister which are festering are clean. What has M. 6:8 given us? M. 6:81 and J say that bright spots on the head and beard are clean. M. 6:8K then lists the same items as are in M. 7:lASc-e, in the same language, and says that they are not susceptible to uncleanness because of plagues, do not join together with them, etc.; the five items are not susceptible in any respect. Accordingly, we cannot regard M. 7:1 as a continuation of M. 6:8. It simply goes over part of the same ground in a different way. This fact strongly suggests that M. 6:8 wanted ten items, down to ndils. It did not continue at "the head," etc., the items of which originally formed a sep,1ratc pericope. The center of interest of that pericope is on the interrelationships between the specified items, in various conditions, and their susceptibility to plagues, to joining together with

120

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1

plagues, to the spreading of the plague into them, to quick flesh, and to whether they hinder the cleanness of the one who turns wholly white. That group then is autonomous of M. 6:SA-H (items 1-10). But M. 7:1A5 also is autonomous of M. 7:lAl-4, first, because, from M. 7:1A5 to the end, we deal with these same items and ignore the others; second, because, as we shall now see, M. 7:lA contradicts B-G! B asks about the rule for a head or beard which has become bald, and the boil and the burning and blister which have formed a scab. These are clean. What has M. 6:8 told us? If we return to M. 6:SM, N, 0, we learn that the specified items are susceptible to uncleanness through plagues, but ( to be sure) do not join together, do not spread into them, are not susceptible to uncleanness because of quick flesh, but do hinder the cleanness of one who turns wholly white. So M. 6:SM-0 and M. 7:lB certainly stand at variance with one another. Since the supposition of "clean" in M. 7:lB is that the items are not susceptible to plagues affecting bright spots, the variance is a direct conflict. For M. 7:lB knows nothing of the subleties of M. 6:SN-0. That contradiction is not our primary problem. The real difficulty is the relationship of A5-B to D-G. Clearly, D-G presuppose a point of ( 1) uncleanness, ( 2) cleanness, and ( 3) uncleanness. This is clear in C. The head and beard before they put forth hair are clean. Then they put forth hair. They are susceptible. Then they become bald. They are dean again, as Bl+ 3 make explicit. What does D give us? A boil, burning, or blister before it forms a scab. What is the condition of the boil, burning, or blister before it forms a scab? Surely it is none other than: festering! So Dl is to be understood as referring to a period before the boil, burning and blister have formed a scab, and A5 is contrasted to B, festering, then forming a scab. A5 says a bright spot on a festering boil, burning, or blister is clean. B says ·a boil, burning, or blister which forms a scab is dean! This is curious. D, as understood by E-F, takes for granted a boil, burning, or blister ( 1) before forming a scab is unclean; (2) when a scab forms, it is clean; ( 3) when quick flesh appears again, it is unclean. The supposition of C + E-F is the same as B, and contrary to A. Let us now go over this ground with closer attention to the several positions before us. We begin with C+E-G, the model for what follows. We have been told that the head and beard which have not put forth hair are in the same status as the skin of the flesh (M. 6:SP). They thus are susceptible to uncleanness. If they put forth hair, we have just now been told at A5a-b, they are not susceptible. If they become bald again,

NEG AIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1

121

M. 6:8N says they are susceptible to uncleanness. Accordingly, Eliezer in E points out that at the outset and at the end they are unclean, so they should be ruled unclean. We ignore the intervening timecAqiva' s established position is rejected. The sages say they are clean. The intervening period has interrupted the period of uncleanness; Now we have to ask about D. D1 assumes that the boil, burning, and blister before they have formed a scab are unclean. But before forming a scab, these items, as I said, can only be festering. That is the supposition of A5c-e+B. Following Eliezer's view, when they form a scab, they are clean. This is consistent with B2. Then, at D3, they become quick flesh again, so are unclean. Clearly, as in C, we have to have a state of uncleanness, cleanness, and then uncleanness. We do have the latter two-scab, clean, quick flesh, unclean. SoD1 poses a problem. Albeck (p. 219) emends before they have formed a scab. He asks us to read: before they have begun to fester. That is, if there was a bright spot on a boil, burning, or blister before it begins to fester, it is unclean; when festering starts, it is clean; afterward the boil, burning, and blister become quick flesh, so unclean. He posits three stages: unclean, clean, unclean. This seems to me a fair solution to the problem. But it omits festering, and the contrast should be festering vs. scab. And no one yet has told us about the situation before festering begins, which is no issue either in M. 6:8 or in M. 7:1. · · The contradiction in fact is between A5c-e and B2. The former says festering, boils, etc. are clean; the latter says when festering ceases and a scab forms, then the item is clean. We surely cannot have both. M. 6:8 will not allow it. So the problem is not in Eliezer's pattern, but in the antecedent law. Eliezer almost certainly has built his construction on B, to which C-G are integral, and ignored A5c-e. And why should he not have done so, since it is B at which his construction begins. Now M. 6:8K-L are perfectly clear that festering, boils, etc. are clean when not covered by a scab, and are unclean when covered by a scab. I am inclined to see the interpretive problem in C as nothing more than a repetition of that same contrast. B, in other words, rejects M. 6:8N-O; so does Eliezer. A, by contrast, strongly implies that it agrees, at 5c-e, with M. 6:8N-O. It produces the inference that, without festering ( = with a scab), the items are unclean; with festering ( = without a• scab), they are clean. Then there can be no doubt as to the facts of the matter, since M. 6:8 contrasts K with N. M. 6:8,

122

NEGAI.M CHAPTER SEVEN

7:1

as is clear, furthermore knows no other condition than either festering or a scab. It has no knowledge, in particular, of a stage ("unclean") before festering. And M. 7:1 agrees, for it too knows only the time that the boil, etc. are festering or the time that they are covered by a scab. Festering is a mark of cleanness to A5, so a scab should be a mark of uncleanness, just as M. 6:8 has already told us. And to B-G, a scab is a sign of cleanness, so festering sho1tld be a sign of uncleanness, in contradiction to M. 6:8. The copyists of PB and Mare right in joining M. 6:8 to M. 7:1but only so far as the primary list is concerned. That is, M. 7:lAl-5 do indeed complement M. 6:8. And the remainder is distinct and contradictory. Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Leprosy 6:4) combines A5a-b with B, '' ... or on the head or the chin if hair was on them and they then grew bald and all the hair fell off and the bright spot was revealed." The passage continues, "If it is on a boil or a burning while they are festering and they form ,1 scar [ = M. 7:lB}, such a Bright Spot is clean. So too if the Bright Spot is on the head or the chin which has never yet grown hair and they grow hair and the hair then falls out; or if the Bright Spot is on the skin and its place becomes a boil or a burning and new flesh develops and becomes as the skin of the flesh, although at the outset and at the end there is uncleanness, since it is clean in the meantime, such a bright spot is deemed clean." Maimonides has thus given us a bright spot, then a boil, then new flesh forms-and M. 7:1D has no reference to festering whatever. Thus he sees C-G as quite separate from A5-B. The one contrasts festering with a scab ( A5, B); the other has no festering at all (D-G). Not having a scab ( M. 7: 1D) and festering (As) are unrelated. Maimonides thus wishes to treat M. 7:lB-G as wholly separate from M. 7:lA, not to mention M. 6:8 and to interpret the items as dealing with quite separate phenomena. On form-critical grounds, he has a strong case. A. B.

A bright spot: on a gentile before he converted, and aftcnvard he convertedC. on the head before it grew hair and it grew hair, and after it grew hair, it became bald-D. on a beard before it grew hair, and it grew hair, and after it grew hair, it became a hairless scabE. and on the flesh before it produced a boil, and it produced a boil, and after it produced a boil, it produced a scab ($WRBH)--F. on the skin of the flesh before it produced a burning, and it

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 1-2

123

produced a burning, and after it produced a burning, it produced a scab-it is dean. T. 2:14 (Tos. W & R p. 156, ls. 9-14)

A-B cites M. 7:1A2, C and D rephrase M. 7:1A5a-b+Bl-2. Maimonides' version clearly has good precedent, therefore. E follows TR III, p. 173. T. thus phrases the law in its own way. T.'s ultimate redactor assigns M. 7: 1 ( + 2) to Chapter Six, as we surmised in commenting on the passage. But the division of T. is so different from that of M. that we cannot make much of the fact. A. R. Liezer b. Jacob says, '"Since its. beginning and its end is unclean, it is unclean." B. And sages say, "One examines it as in the first instance." C. [If] there was a bright spot [ on a gentile J before he converted, and after he converted another bright spot was joined to it, D. the first does not subject it [the bright spot] to uncleanness on account of the tokens of white hair and spreading, and does not hinder the spreading [ of the second throughout the man's body, which yields clearance]. E. [If there was] a half split bean before he converted, and a half 4 split bean [ developed, completing the requisite measure] after he converted, he is clean. T. 2:15 (Tos. W & R p. 156, ls. 15-19)

A-B cite M. 7:lE-G. T.'s its is preferable to M.'s their. But the sages ''clean" is now revised: it is clean but is to be examined afresh for signs of spreading (Sens, compare MA). C-E spell out complexities in M. 7:1A2, but do so as an autonomous pericope. C-D introduce the complication of a new bright spot next to the one present before conversion. The first is of no account whatever. If white hairs appear in the first, they have no role in the certification of the second. Spreading from the first to the second is not taken into consideration. E makes the same point. If the first is not of requisite measure, and, after conversion, alongside the first a bright spot grows which completes the requisite measure, that is of no account. The person is still clean. These are natural extensions of the stated rule, but what they say is obvious.

7:2 A. Their appearance [color] changed, B. whether to produce a lenient decision or to produce a stringent decisionC. How to produce a lenient decision?

124

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7: 2

It was as white as snow and became as white as the lime of the Temple, as white as white wool and as white as the skin of an egg and became [as white asJ the second shade of a swelling or the second shade of bright white (Lev. 13:6-8). D. How to produce a stringent decision? It. was as white as the skin of an egg and became as white as wool, as white as the lime of the Temple and as white as snow. E. R. Eleazar b. cAzariah declares clean [ = M. 4:7}. F. R. Eleazar I;Iisma says, "To produce a lenient decision-it is clean. And to produce a strict decision-let it be examined as in the beginning." G. R. cAqiva says, "Whether to produce a lenient decision or to produce a strict decision-let it be examined as in the beginning [as a new spot]." M. 7:2

The present construction shows clearly how a glossator does his work Primary to the pericope are A, then E, F, and G. B is secondary, for it is introduced only to accord with the distinction important to F + G, which depend upon it. E does not need it. A simple version ' would be, "'If their appearance changed, they nonetheless are clean" or •·'unclean." The opinion of Eleazar, therefore, can stand by itself. F then differs from E, and G with E also. Once B was added to the construction, C-D were interpolated, a tertiary level, inserted whole upon the basis of the distinction of B. As usual with tertiary glosses, we. are told what we may readily surmise. M. 7:1 has declared that some bright spots are clean. M, 7:2 simply asks, What happens if their appearance changes? The reference should be to some items in the list of M. 7: 1. But in the first place it should not be to people who in any event cannot be decla,.redunclean, that is, Nos. 1-3. It can and probably does refer to Nos. 4-5. On the other hand, the question can be interpreted to apply to clean bright spots before their bearers have entered the category of su~ceptibility to uncleanness, for instance, a bright. spot on a gentile .who converted; after mnversion the .color of the bright spot changed. B-D refer to the changing o{ coors, from light to dai;k, th1.,1sto cleanness, or from dark to· ight,/ therefore to uncleanness. The ·supposition is, however, that the ·bright spot can be unclean and subject to decision, that is, the supposition of Eleazar J:Iisma and ..cAqiva. Eleazar b. cAzariah does not care; he says that no matter what, the item is clean. So there need be no decision, that is, no leniency and no stringency. This confirms our original view that B + C-D are added solely to accommodate F-G.

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:2-3

125

Eleazar I;Iisma says that if the color deepened, it is dean. If it grows white, we do have the possibility of uncleanness. That is to say, it is as if we have a new bright spot. cAqiva agrees but reasonably includes any color-change, which denotes a new spot. cAqiva's opinion is completely opposite Eleazar b. cAzariah's, therefore, there being only two possibilities, clean or let it be examined as in the beginning. Eleazar I;Iisma's view is compromise; he agrees with both, therefore uses the apodosis of each, clean + let it be examined. More interesting: No party is prepared to certify the bright spot as unclean solely on the basis of a change in the color of the bright spot once the spot enters the category of susceptibility to uncleanness. cAqiva and Eleazar I;Iisma assume that we have a fundamentally new bright spot, beginning after susceptibility commences. cAqiva ( + Eleazar I;Iisma) simply holds that, since the bright spot now indeed is susceptible, we do examine it. Eleazar b. cAzariah takes the strong position that, having been insusceptible before the period of susceptibility has commenced, the bright spot, which is continuous, not new, can never be declared uncle.an. The rule of M. 7:2 is clearly spelled out by Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 6:4): "If the color of a bright spot changes, becoming either brighter or duller, it must be inspected anew. Thus if a gentile has a bright spot like the skin of an egg, and, after he becomes a proselyte, it becomes like snow, or if it has been like snow, and, after he become a proselyte, it becomes like the skin of an egg, it must be inspected anew. So too with a newborn child or a crease that is laid before or a head or a chin that becomes bald or a boil or a burning that puts forth new flesh: the rule is that if the color of a bright spot on one of these changes, it must be inspected anew; otherwise it is deemed clean."

7:3 A. A bright spotand in it there is nothingB. in the first instance, at the end of the· first weeklet him be shut up. C. At the end of the second week, after clearance-let him be clear. D. He is in the process of shutting him or pronouncing it clearE. and tokens of uncleanness appear in itF. let him be certified. G. A bright spotH. and in it are tokens of uncleanness-

126

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:3-5

I.

let him be certified. He is still in the process of certifying himand the tokens of uncleanness go awayK. in the first instance, at the end of the first weeklet him be shut up. L. At the end of the second week, after the clearance-let him be clear. M. 7:3 (b. Shab. 94b)

J.

It would be difficult to point to a more elegant construction, exhibiting perfect balance in all ways, verbal and conceptual. The differences between A-F and G-L simply depend upon the facts of the matter. If a bright spot contains no token of uncleanness, then the person is shut up, both upon first examination and upon the second, at the end of the first week. The parallel is at G, a bright spot which does contain tokens of uncleanness is certified unclean forthwith. C has no counterpart, for obvious reasons. The issue now is the absence of tokens of uncleanness at the third examination or after clearance. D-E are balanced by J,then K-L match F. The problem of D-E is the sudden appearance of tokens of uncleanness while the process of quarantine or clearance is under way. We take account of these tokens of uncleanness; the person is certified unclean. If the symptoms of uncleanness disappear (J), we have to make sure they are permanently gone. Thus K: he is shut up for one week, then a second week. At the third inspection or after clearance, the person is clear of uncleanness. All this is so obvious that we must conclude we are given these items only in preparation for M. 7:4-5, in which the unnatural disappearance of tokens of uncleanness, at various points in the inspectionprocess, is investigated, the counterpart of the natural disappearance of the tokens discussed here. The operative items are 7:3D and J.We take account of changes during the inspection, before the priest has given his ruling, just as in M. 7:4H, not to mention C-D. 7:4-5 A. He who removes the tokens of uncleanness, or cauterizes the quick flesh [ at which point the bright spot loses its token of uncleanness), transgresses a negative rule [Deut. 24:8). B. And as to cleanness? C. [If he does so) before he comes to the priest, he is clean. D. [If he does so] after his certification [of uncleanness), he is unclean. E. Said R. cAqiva, "I asked Rabban Gamaliel and R. Joshua, en route to Gadvad [Pa: NRWWT; N: GDBH; T: GDWWD; C:

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

127

NDBT; P: NRWWD; V: NDB; PB: NDBD; M: NRBH; K: NYDBT or MDBT], '[If he does so] during his quarantine, what is the law?' F. "They said to me, 'We have not heard. But we have heard, 'Before he comes to the priest, he is clean. After his certification, he is unclean.' G. "I began to bring proofs to them." H. (1) Whether [one does so when he] stands before the priest, and (2) [whether one does so when he] is in the midst of his quarantine-he is clean, before the priest declares him unclean. I. When is his purification ? J. R. Eliezer says, "When another plague will be born on him and he will become clean from it." K. And sages say, (1) "Until it will spread over his entire [body], "or (2) until his bright spot will diminish to less than the size of a split bean." M. 7:4 (b. Shab. 94b) A. He on whom was a bright spot and it was [whollyJ cut off [unintentionally]it is clean. B. He intentionally cut it offC. R. Eliezer says, "When another plague is born on him, and he becomes dean of it [he becomes dean of this one as well]." D. And sages say, "Until it spreads over him [he is unclean. Thereafter he is clean]." E. It was on the tip of his foreskinlet him be circumcized. M. 7:5 (b. Shab. 132b, b. Bekh. 34a)

M. 7:4A simply introduces the problem, continuing 7:3. What if a person deliberately removes the tokens of uncleanness? He dearly should not do so ( except in the instance of 7: 5E) . If he does so, however, he is declared clean ( C) when the priest has yet to see him, and he is unclean if he already has been certified unclean. Two questions logically must be asked and answered within the foregoing supposition. First, what if the person removes the tokens during quarantinethat is, before he has been certified unclean (D) but after he has come to the priest (C)? In fact M. 7:3D-J have answered this question. Second, how does the person certified unclean, who has been so stupid as to remove the tokens of uncleanness, ever become clean? This latter question is raised, in natural sequence from D, at M. 7:41-K, and M. 7:5B-D simply repeat the same opinion in the same case, introduced with less complexity at M. 7:5B than at M. 7:4A-C.

128

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

This simple construction has been formally, but not substantively, complicated by the intrusion of the story of cAqiva, M. 7:4E-G, clearly truncated and therefore defective. cAqiva phrases the question about doing so during quarantine (E). The answer in F repeats C-D. The sole reply, therefore, ignores the question, for C-D generate, but do not answer, E ( !) . H supplies a better answer. It incorporates two situations. The first has a man standing before the priest, but the priest has not yet given his decision. The second explicitly brings us back to cAqiva's question. The answer is that the person is clea'n. That is, we have C all over again, but fully spelled out. Now the point of F becomes clearer. The cited tradition produces H, ''before he comes before the priest" of C being understood in H to mean, "before the priest has given his decision." On what basis? Clearly it is D: only after certification is the man unclean. Up to that point-before the man comes to the priest ( C), or before the priest has actually given his decision (Hl ), or while in quarantine (which is the same as "before one has come to the priest, before certification" )-the man is dean. This is a well worked out tradition, and it is difficult to disagree with the redactor, who, in placing H where he did, strongly implies this is cAqiva's view. Indeed it must be. (And so is M. 7:3, which is the way cAqiva would have summarized his view of the law.) Then I links to H in no way at all, for the man ref erred to in H is dean. I can only refer to D. Eliezer's view is that a new plague will subject the man to a process of purification. Sages agree, but in Kl ref er to the same plague, and in K2 to the same bright spot. The original bright spot, therefore, governs its own status, and no. other can be taken into account. I suppose Eliezer stresses that it is the same man bearing more than a single spot, while the sages stress that it must be not only the same man but also the same spot. M. 7:5, as noted, returns us to the issues of 7:4. A poses no problem. Cutting off the bright spot-not done intentionally-yields a status of cleanness. That rule surely applies even after certification. We simply accept the disappearance of the bright spot. C-D repeat M. 7:4J-Kl, but with an autonomous superscription; B, rather than one depending upon the foregoing materials. M. 7:4K2 is left out because here the whole spot has been cut off (Sens). Or the gloss was added after to M. 7:4K when the passage was reworked. 7:5A-D, in fact, have been reworked for the purposes of M. 7:4. E is quite separate from all the foregoing, but thematically is closely

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

129

tied. Its closest relationship is to M. 7 :4A. A person who removes the tokens of uncleanness transgresses a negative rule, but if it is to remove a token on the foreskin, which itself must be removed, he does not transgress a negative rule but performs a positive commandment. E assumes the penis is susceptible to uncleanness, therefore ignores M. 6:7 or posits spreading, not quick flesh, is the token of uncleanness. In all, we have another handsome construction, in which diverse materials have been worked together to form a logical and well-designed complex. A. He who uproots the tokens of uncleanness from his plague, B. whether he uprooted it in its entirety or whether he uprooted part of it, .···. C. whether [he did so] before he came to a priset~ or whether (he did so] after he came before a priest, · "'/ D. whether [he did soJ while he was certified unclean, or whether [he did so) during quarantine, or whether [he did so) after he was declared clearE. lo, such a one is smitten with forty stripes. T. 3:1 (Tos. W & R p. 156, ls. 21-2, p. 157, ls. 1-2) (Sifre Deut. 274)

T. simply applies M. 7:4A to every case. He who tears a plague out of a garment, B. and he who scrapes a plague off the wall of the house, C. lo, this one is smitten with forty stripes, as it is said, "Take heed, in an attack of leprosy, to be very careful to do according to all that the Levitical priests shall direct you" (Deut. 24:8). D. But he carries the beam on his shoulder and [walks) with the bast (SYB) on his foot, (and), if it [the bright spot] goes away, it goes away. E. [If] there were two hairs on him-F. he removed one and the other fell outG. he is clean. H. There were three-I. he removed one and two fell outJ. he is clean. K. (There were three and he removed] two, and one fell outL. he is unclean. M. [If] his bright spot grew less than a split bean, one way or the other, he is dean. N. If it spread over his entire body, one way or the other, he is clean. T. 3:2 (Tos. W & R p. 157, ls. 3-9) (b. Shab. 133a) A.

9

130

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

A-C extend the rule of M. 7:4A to plagues in clothing and in houses. D, by contrast, permits the man to do normal actions which on their own may clear up the spot. Maimonides ( Unclemmess of Leprosy 10:1) completes the thought of D, "It is permissible for a leper to carry a yoke on the shoulder afflicted with leprosy, or to bind up his foot with bast, and if the tokens of uncleanness disappear, let them disappear, proz,ided that this was not his p!!rpoie." In E-G, the removal of part of the symptoms of uncleanness is worked out. If a person removes only one, but the other falls out on its own, he is declared clean. H-J repeat the same matter. K depends upon H-J.There were originally three. He removed two. He himself has removed the token of uncleanness. The man now is unclean. Maimonides explains (loc. cit. 10:2): ''Yet no one is punished unless his deeds profit him. If they do not profit him, he is not punished. Thus if there is on him a bright spot containing three white hairs, and he plucks out one, he is not punished, since he remains :1s unclean as he was before." In 10:4 (given below), he cites our passage. A. [If] there was on him quick flesh the size of a lentilB. he cauterized half of it, and half of it disappeared-he is clean C. [If] there was more than a IentilD. he cauterized the excess---E. and that part about the size of a lentil disappeared [ on its own]F. he is clean. G. [If he cauterized the J lentil, and the excess went away, he is unclean. [He himself has removed the token of uncleanness.] H. If his bright spot diminished in size to less than a split bean, one way or the other, he is clean. I. If it spread over his whole body, one way or the other, he is unclean. T. 3:3 (Tos. W & R p. 157, ls. lC-14)

A-B apply to quick flesh foregoing rule. That is, the man has not effected his own cleanness.' If he removes only part of the requisite area, and the other part disappears on its own, he therefore is declared clean. The problem, parallel to T. 3 :2E-K, begins at C. The parallels are exact, through M.H ( = T. 3:2M). T.'s view is that M. 7:4Kl refers to the bright spot, not to quick flesh. T. 3:31 holds that whether the man cauterized the lentil or the excess, breaking out over the whole body lea.vcs him unclean. We take account of the area deliberately cauterized. We do not know whether, without cauterization, that area would have been covered.

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

131

As stated, M. 7 :4Kl thus is limited to the breaking forth of white hair (Sens, TR III, p. 174). . Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Leprosy 10:4) states these rules as follows: "If anyone plucks out one white hair and the other falls out, he is deemed clean. But if there are three and he plucks out two and the third falls out [ on its own J, he remains unclean. If there is on him quick flesh the size of a lentil and he cauterizes half of it and the other half disappears, he is deemed clean. Also if it is more than the size of a lentil and he cauterizes the surplus, and the rest-the size of a lentil-disappears, he is deemed clean. But if he cauterizes a part, the size of a lentil, and the surplus disappears, he remains unclean." A. Said R. Yose, "Under what circumstances? When a bright spot appears on thi.s excess [ of quick flesh]. B. "And if this excess became a boil, it is clear. C. "For even if the bright spot was the size of a seia, and a boil was joined to it, it is clean." T. 3:4A (Tos. W & R p. 157, Is. 14-16)

Yose refers to T. 3:3G. T. 3:3 does not distinguish between the disappearance of the quick flesh through its becoming a boil and through its becoming a bright spot. Yose says if the excess becomes a boil, the spot is clean. Why? Because even if the man had not cauterized the excess, the man would have been marked as clean by the boil ( C) (Sens). A festering boil is a token of cleanness. A. "I began bringing proofs to them: B. "On what account is he clean before he comes to the priest? Is it not because the priest has not seen the tokens of uncleanness which are on him? Also [ if he does soJ while he is quarantined, let him be clean, until the priest sees the tokens of uncleanness which are on him." ' · . C. They said to him, "Well have you spoken." T. 3:4B (Tos. W &R p. 157, ls. 16-20)

A cites M. 7:4G. Then B gives the proof. The main point is that the priest must see the token. This applies even here. M. 7 :4H stresses the same matter. A counter-argument, distinguishing the present problem from the established law, is not attempted. It could be based on not rewarding the sinner-the given of Yose's distinction-in T. 3:2-3A. T. 3:5C's sages clearly stand behind the Ushan principle, and Eliezer agrees with cAqiva' s supposition.

132

NEGAIM

CHAPTER

SEVEN

7:4-5

A. [If} one cut it off intentionally, B. R. Liezer says, "When another plague will be born on him and he will be purified from it, [he will be clean)." C. And sages say, "This one cannot be purified ever." D. Said R. Judah, "R. Eliezer and sages did not dispute concerning one who cut it off and cut off with it living flesh, that such a one never will have purification. E. "Nor do they differ concerning one who cut it off and left any amount whatever of it, for, if it spreads over his entire body, lo, he is clean. F. "Concerning what did they disagree? Concerning one who cut it off exactly (MWWT = MWB)T). G. "For R. Liezer says, 'He has no purification until another plague will be born on him, and he will be purified from it.' H. "And sages say, 'If it spread over part of him, he is unclean. If it spread over the whole of his body, he is clean.' " T. 3:5 (Tos. W & R p. 157, ls. 21-24, p. I 58, ls. 1-4)

T.A-B cite M. 7:5B-C. But C has a new opinion for the sages, unknown to M. M. 7:5C follows Judah's revision. Following the Ushans' theory, that the sinner is not rewarded, Judah holds that if the man cut off the spot and flesh around it, presumably guaranteeing there can be no spreading or recurrence, he can never be declared clear. If (E) the man cut off less than the entire sign, and if the remainder then spreads, of course, he is cleared. F states the case which, in Judah's theory, is under discussion. The man cut off the spot exactly, leaving nothing behind and taking nothing extra. Now we can have the dispute of M. Eliezer and sages have the same opinions as in M. Judah's improvement, therefore, involves reading into the Yavnean version the consideration important at T. 3:3-4A. Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 10: 3) gives, "If his bright spot is wholly cut away unintentionally, he is deemed clean ( = M. 7:5A]. If he cuts it away intentionally and cuts away any living flesh encompassing it, even to a hair's breadth, he can never become clean. If he cuts it away exactly, he cannot become clean unless it breaks out all over him." I assume the important point to sages and Maimonides is that, since later events prove the man left behind a bit of the bright spot, accordingly, after the fact vie declare he can be purified. Eliezer's position is that in any event we await a new condition of uncleanness and purification. A. A leper (M~WR c) who has been quarantined may circumcize himself, and he is free of the sacrifice.

NEGAIM CHAPTER SEVEN

7:4-5

133

B. And one who has been certified unclean may circumcize himself, but he is liable for the sacrifice. C. If there was a bright spot the size of a bean, and about half a split bean was removed by the circumcision, and at the end of the week it became as large as a selaD. he is to be inspected as if at the beginning. T. 3:6 (Tos. W & R p. 158, ls. 5-7)

A-B have their own concern, basing their ruling on M. 7:5E. The distinction is unknown to M. C-D again develop a special case, taking M. for granted. The growth is treated as wholly new. The old is ignored and not taken into account at all, as in M. 7:1 .

CHAPTER EIGHT

NEGAIM CHAPTER EIGHT We proceed to a new problem relevant to the bright spot, namely, the breaking forth, or flowering (PRJ:I) of the spot over the entire body. Scripture is dear that when the unclean spot overspreads the entire body, the man is clean. The Mishnaic refinement, introduced at M. 8: 1, is that since a spot which breaks forth when the man is unclean produces clearance, one which breaks forth when the man is clean produces certification of uncleanness. The real interest of M., however, is in the recession of the spot from the tips of the limbs. That means a reversion to uncleanness. M. 8:1 serves as a prologue to M. 8:2-4, a Yavnean composite. The issue, as at M. 4:1-3, is the breaking forth of the several tokens of uncleanness, bright spot and quick flesh (M. 8:2), bright spot and white hair (M. 8:3A-E), bright spot and spreading (M. 8:3F-K) and a summary involving the tips of the limbs, M. 8:4. M. 8:4 concludes that the process may be repeated any number of times. The moot point is whether white hair is comparable to the quick flesh. Joshua says that it is, sages, that it is not (M. 8:2). T. 3:7-8 give us an Ushan refinement of the matter: the extent of the recurrence of the symptom on the tips of the limbs which will make the man unclean. T. 3 :.9 further shows that it is cAqiva who disagrees with Joshua about white hair. The next logical question ( M. 8: 5), in the consideration of breaking forth, is places on the body to which breaking forth does not apply. The pericope depends upon M. 6:7-8 and 7:1, that is, places which are susceptible to be made unclean by a bright spot must be covered by the bright spot, but places which are not going to be made unclean by a bright spot need not be covered over for the man to be regarded as clean. This composite further relies upon the Y avnean materials of M. 8:1-4. M. 8:6 refines the issue of breaking forth. We now have two bright spots, one unclean, the other clean. We ask whether we take account of whether the spot broke from the clean spot, in which case the man is unclean, or from the unclean spot, in which case he is clean. The answer is that it does not matter; he is clean ( = M. 5: 1) . Then,

NEG AIM CHAPTER EIGHT 8: 1

135

M. 8:6F-K, we inquire about whether spots on parts of the body which sometimes are joined and sometimes are separated are unclean. This issue is autonomous, but has been carefully redacted in accord with the theme of its setting. L-M raise the question of tetters in the context of breaking forth. N-P of the same pericope then deal with two issues, tetters and the size of a token of uncleanness less than a lentil. Meir's view is that quick flesh less than a lentil is a token of uncleanness and rejects the fundamental rule requiring a lentil of affected area. T. 3:11 gives us a further Ushan attestation for M. 8:6A-C, and I am inclined to see the group as Ushan. M. 8:7 brings us back to M. 8:2, a man entirely white who has come before the priest. The issue is changes which will mean he is now unclean. M. 8:7 looks like the way in which Joshua would have liked to formulate the law, so is apt to be Yavnean in its origin. M. 8:8 again returns us to the topic of M. 8:1, an autonomous version of the same law. The redactor, however, has linked M. 8:8 to M. 8:7 to give us a complete rule. M. 8 :9 is a difficult pericope. It presents us with a Y avnean dispute, between Ishmael and Eleazar b. cAzariah, about a person who comes to the priest entirely white, with quick flesh only the size of a lentil. Then the token of uncleanness broke forth over the whole body;. the man is clean. Afterward the tips of the limbs reappear. Ishmael says this is like the restoration of the tips of the limbs in the case of a large bright spot-:-that is, a breaking forth over the entire body. Eleazar compares it to the restoration of the tips of the limbs in the case of the small bright spot. The exegetes complete these metaphors in both possible ways: It is like ... and he is unclean; or it is like ... and he is clean. Clearly, the issue of M. 8:1-4 existed in a number of ·versions. M. 8:10 concludes the subtractate on the bright spot, pointing out that the condition of the man at the point at which the priest examines him is decisive, that is, the same point as we saw in M. 1:5-6 ( = 7:4). M. 9:1-3 turn to a new topic entirely, the boil and burning. We have, therefore, concluded the massive spelling out of M. 3:3. 8:1 A. That which breaks forth (PRI;I) [ over the entire body] from the unclean [ sign, or during quarantine] is clean. · B. [If even only] the tips of the limbs reappeared with it, he is unclean, until his bright spot diminishes to less than the size of a split bean.

136

NEG AIM CHAPTER EIGHT

8: 1- 3

D. [That which breaks forth over the entire body] from the clean [sign; Slotki: "When he was declared dean"), is unclean. E. [If) the tips of the limbs [only] reappeared with it, he is unclean, F. until his bright spot returns to the size in which it had previously been (LKMWT SHYTH). M. 8:1

At issue is the articulation of Lev. 13:12-4: "And if the leprosy breaks out in the skin, so that the leprosy covers all the skin of the diseased person from head to foot, so far as the priest can see, then the priest shall make an examination, and if the leprosy has covered all his body, he shall pronounce him clean of the disease; it has all turned white, and he is clean. But when the raw flesh appears on him, he shall be unclean .... " M. now adds the important observation that when there is spreading while a man is quarantined or declared unclean, or when the unclean sign spreads throughout the body, the man is clean (A). But if the mark which has been declared Zclean (e.g., M. 1:3, 1:5, M. 6:6 (Sens]) spreads over the entire body, the man is unclean (D). These two matched rules then are articulated in exactly the same ways, B=E, C=F. If the tips of the limbs reappear, bearing the mark of cleanness (B) or uncleanness (E), the man is unclean. And this remains the case, until ( C) the bright spot reverts to the less than requisite size, or (F) it reverts to its original size, without spreading. The important point is the condition of the tips of the limbs, ref erring to M. 6: 7. If the tips bear marks of uncleanness ( quick flesh), they are not susceptible to uncleanness. In the present situation, however, they do connote uncleanness. So states Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 7:4): ''Moreover, tips of members that do not attest uncleanness because of quick flesh within a bright spot can attest uncleanness and can hinder cleanness in one who has completely turned white. Thus, if one who has been adjudged unclean, or who has been shut up, turns wholly white with leprosy except for quick flesh the size of a lentil, even though it is on the tip of his finger or the tip of his nose or the like, such a one remains clean'... " 8:2-3 A. B. C. D.

A bright spot the size of a split beanand in it is quick flesh the size of a lentilit broke forth over his entire [body Jand afterward the quick flesh went away-

NEGAIM CHAPTER EIGHT 8:2-.'i

E. F. G.

H. I.

J.

K. L. A. B. C.

D. E. F. G. H.

I.

J.

them,

K. forth

[',7

or the quick flesh went awayand afterward it [the spot] broke forth over his entire [body Jhe is clean. Quick flesh appeared in him-he is unclean. White hair appeared in himR. Joshua declares unclean. An.J sages declare clean. M. 8:2 A bright spotand in it is white hairit broke forth over his entire [body Jeven though white hair is in its place [ not having spread]he is dean. A bright spot, and in it is spreadingit broke forth over his entire [body}he is dean. And in all cases in which the tips of the limbs reappear with lo, these are unclean. [If} it broke forth over part of him, he is unclean. If it broke: over his entire [body], he is clean. M. 8:3

M. 8:2-3 now spell out the rule of M. 8:1. In M. 8:2A-G, we have a man with a bright spot of requisite size, containing quick flesh of requisite size. He is unclean. If the symptoms spread through his entire body, but afterward the quick flesh disappeared, what is the rule? Does this case fall under the foregoing rule, that what breaks forth over the unclean person produces a declaration of cleanness) Or, because the quick flesh has disappeared, do ,ve now say the man was made unclean through the complete spreading, the disappearance of the quick flesh marking cleanness of the original bright spot-so he has become unclean after being clean? Underlying the problem, therefore, is whether the "large bright spot," that is, the one which has spread over the entire body, is ad judged in the same way as is the "small bright spot," the one which consists of the normal, modest proportions. E-F add a complication. The bright spot with quick flesh is unclean. Then the quick flesh disappears. Thereafter ( F), the man's ha-ving been marked as clean by the disappearance of the quick flesh, the bright spot spread over the entire body. The rule in both cases is that the man is clean. Why? Because we treat the process as one and continuous. Whatever the interim order

138

NEGAIM CHAPTER EIGHT 8:2-3

of symptoms, the final spreading, beginning in a situation of uncleanness, is a mark of cleanness, even though in the interim we have had marks of cleanness. H-1 qualify the foregoing. If after the bright spot has spread over the whole body, quick flesh appears, the man is unclean. Maimonides ( Uncleanness of Leprosy 7:3) explains, ''For it is said, 'Whensoever quick flesh appeareth in him, he shall be unclean' ( Lev. 13: 14), that is, provided it is the size of a lentil or larger, in length and breadth." The final dispute, J-L, depending upon the foregoing and thus attesting it, asks about white hair. The bright spot again is assumed to have spread throughout the body. Joshua logically treats the white hair as equivalent to the quick flesh of H-1. The sages declare the man clean. Maimonides gives the rule as a unitary pericope, A-G + J-L (Uncleanness of Leprosy 7:3A): ''If there is in anyone a bright spot the size of a bean, with quick flesh therein the size of a lentil, and he is adjudged unclean because of the quick flesh, and then leprosy breaks out all over him, and the quick flesh afterward disappears, or if the quick flesh first disappears and afterward the leprosy breaks out all over him-such a one is still clean, even though white hair appears in him." Then ''If quick flesh develops in him, he becomes unclean, for it is said ... " It seems to me that Maimonides understands the Scripture to provide the exception to the general rule, which otherwise applies. This is the reasoning of the sages of M. 8:2L. Lev. 13:14 speaks of quick flesh, not of white hair. Joshua regards the one as equivalent to the other. M. 8:3A-B continue to spell out the former problem. We have a bright spot with requisite white hair. The man is unclean. Then the bright spot spread over the whole body. All we have is the original white hair; it has not spread. That does not matter. The white hair marked the spot as unclean to begin with, and that is its sole function. We do not ask that the white h;iir spread over the entire body before we rule the man clean. F-1 give the counterpart for spreading, which until now has been ignored. We have a bright spot with spreading. Since the spot has spread, the man is clean. This hardly needs stating, since the point of the "large bright spot" is that the spot indeed does spread. Maimonides (Uncleanness of Leprosy 7:3C-D) gives, "If there is a bright spot in him with white hair therein and he is adjudged unclean because of the white hair, and afterward leprosy breaks out all over him, then even though the white hair remains where it was, he becomes

NEGAIM CHAPTER EIGHT

8:2-3

139

clean, for it is said, 'Whensoever quick flesh appears in him, he shall be unclean,' implying that it is because of quick flesh, and not because of white hair, that he becomes clean, who had wholly turned white after being adjudged unclean or after being shut .up." M. 8:3 therefore depends upon the sages' opinion of M. 8:2J-L. Joshua will have formulated matters otherwise.· Maimonides concludes, "If he is ad judged unclean because of a spreading and afterward it spreads still more and leprosy breaks out all over him, he becomes clean; but if quick flesh appears in him, he becomes unclean." That is, we simply repeat the Scriptural rule. J-Kmark the conclusion of the construction beginning in M. 8:1. J repeats M. 8:lB, adding the joining-language, And in all cases ... and lo, and K makes obvious the presupposition of the entire construction, which is that partial spreading is a mark of uncleanness, and complete coverage or breaking forth (PRE:I= flowering) is a mark of cleanness. K certainli has been added to summarize the matter so as to mark the completion of a whole and well-constructed pericope. The point of J-Kis that whether we have a breaking forth after the appearance of quick flesh or a breaking forth after the appearance of white hair and spreading, the man is clean. We are not concerned whether the leprosy breaks out at the same time or spreads and breaks out little by little until he has completely turned white; in all cases he becomes clean (Maimonides, Uncleanness of Leprosy 7:2D). A. B. C.

A bright spot the size of a split beanand in it is quick flesh the size of a lentilit broke forth over his entire bodyand left the quick flesh in its place [which has not broken

D. forth]E. he is unclean. F. The tips of the limbs reappeared in himG. he is unclean, H. until the bright spot the size of a split bean will diminish [to less than that size]. I. And how much is the reappearance of the tips of the limbs [to mark uncleanness]? J. R. Meir says, "Any amount at all." K. R. Y osesays, "The size of a lentil." L. Said R. Meir, "And is it because of quick flesh that they are unclean? And is it not so that quick flesh does not render [ a spotJ unclean in the tips of limbs [ = M. 6:7]? M. "But it is the decree of the King: Even any amount at all." N. Said R. Yose, "And is it because of the tips of the limbs that they are unclean? And is it not so that if part of his body in the middle

l40

NEGALM CHAPTER EIGHT

8:2-3

reappears, he [ alsoJ is unclean? But it is said, 'Living flesh' (Lev. l 3: l 4: "But when living [raw] flesh appears on him he shall be unclean") and it is said, 'Living flesh' (Lev. 13:10: "There is quick raw flesh in the swelling ... "). "Just as in the latter Scripture the meaning is living flesh the size of a lentil, so living flesh said here means the size of a lentil." T. 3:7-8 (Tos. W & R p. 158, ls. 8-16)

T. supplements M. 8:2. A-C cite M. 8:2A-C verbatim. D changes the problem. The quick flesh remained where it was. The man is unclean. Why? Because the quick flesh is not regarded as part of the body of the bright spot. Even though it is a token of uncleanness, it hinders the breaking forth, just as flesh which is outside of the plague-area, unaffected by the breaking forth hinders the process. The bright spot has to affect every part of the flesh; the remaining quick flesh is unaffected, having remained in its place. In other words, this is not a complete breaking forth. So T. supplements M. 8:2A-C by introducing a case not included in M. F-G then cite M. 8:lE-F. M. 8:lF, however, says th,1t the bright spot has to return to its former size before the man is clean, and T. says it has to diminish to less than the specified split bean. The point is no different however. If the plague spreads over the entire body and afterward the tips of the limbs reappear, the man is unclean. T. I-N bring us to M. 8:6N-P. There we are told that if the tips of the limbs reappear even to less than a lentil of space, Meir declares the man unclean. This confirms my suggestion that two distinct issues ;He joined at M. 8:6N-P, one about the requisite size of reversion, the other about tetters. Meir's view is that any amount at all of recurrence of the living flesh produces uncleanness (just as at M. 8:6N-O, we have less than a lentil of space). Yose says that we require the size of a lentil. This is taken for granted by the sages of M. 8 :6P, but their problem is not Y ose' s, whose opinion on the issue of tetters is not given. So all we can say is that sages and Y ose will agree on the issue between Yose and Meir. Y ose' s point is that the tips of the limbs are not the issue. The issue is living flesh, for which the space required is the size of a lentil. It goes without saying that T.I-N are relevant to M. 8:lB + E and 8:3J-K. A. White hair which reappears after the breaking forth from certification [ of uncleanness has produced a decree of cleanness], B. [ or after] quick flesh, white hair, or spreading after the quarantine [has produced a certification of uncleanness J

NEGAIM CHAPTER EIGHT

8:2-4

141

is clean [ and the breaking forth is not hindered by the white hair]. C. And R. Joshua declares unclean. D. Said R. Joshua, "White hair is a sign of uncleanness, and quick fles_h is a sign of uncleanness. Just as quick flesh which reappears renders unclean, so white hair returns and renders unclean." E. Said to him R. cAqiva, "The particular [contaminating} quality of quick flesh which reappears and renders un~lean is that it renders unclean whether in reverse order or not in reverse order. Will you say so of white hair, which renders unclean only in reverse order [ when the spot appears first and turns the hair white} ? F. "And furthermore, it is said, 'Flesh' (Lev. 13:14)"Living flesh which reappears renders unclean, and white hair which returns does not render unclean." T. 3:9 (Tos. W & R p. 158, ls. 18-20, p. 159, ls. 1-5)

In A the white hair comes back after the man has already been declared clean because of a breaking forth after he was certified unclean. Or the bright spot broke forth after the man was certified unclean because of quick flesh or because of spreading or because of white hair or because of breaking forth while he was quarantined. In all these cases, if white hair appeared thereafter, the man is clean. \ That is, we have an expansion of the cases under dispute in M. 8:2J-L, with the sages' opinion first, Joshua's second. This goes over the ground of M. 8:2J-L, linking the dispute to M. 8:2A-I. Joshua's opinion is based upon the analogy of white hair and quick flesh. cAqiva not only cites Scripture (F), but also logically distinguishes quick flesh from white hair. Quick flesh exhibits a more stringent quality, in that the order of its appearance does not matter. It therefore is more virulent than white hair. White hair is unclean only when the spot turns it white. Quick flesh renders unclean even when the spot has not turned it quick.

8:4 A. All breaking forth over the tips of the limbs, in which the breaking forth over them made an unclean person cleanB. when they reappear, C. they are unclean .. ,.,,"-\,..., . I?: . All breajci-ng··rerta~"