AND THE ETERNAL SPOKE UNTO MOSES AND UNTO AARON. Because it is according to the word of the priest that every strife and every plague shall be,⁴⁶). — It should also be pointed out that while tzara’ath is generally translated as “leprosy” and as such represents a physical disarray in the body of the person, in Jewish tradition it also carries with it a moral and spiritual meaning as illumined further on by Ramban in Verse 47. therefore this communication came also to Aaron. Or it may mean that G-d spoke to Moses that he should tell it to Aaron, as our Rabbis have explained.⁴⁷ It does not state here, “speak unto the children of Israel,”⁴⁸ because it is the priests [who have the duty] when they see the impure [with leprosy] to force them to be quarantined and be cleansed. Now in the section dealing with cleansing of the leper it says, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses, saying: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing,⁴⁹ [and there it mentions neither “speak to the children of Israel,” nor to the priests], because there is no need to urge the Israelite to become cleansed [when his plague of leprosy is healed], nor to urge the priest to perform the rites of the offerings, as they do so willingly. In the section dealing with a person suffering from an issue it does say, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them,⁵⁰, 15:2. because since the matter is of an intimate nature, unknown to others, He admonished them that they should each inform the priest of their sickness.⁵¹ dependent upon the pronouncement of the priest, unlike the law in cases of leprosy (see Note 46 above), Ramban’s words must be understood in the following sense: Since the priest has occasion to perform the Service in the Sanctuary, and even when he is outside it, he may eat terumah (the heave-offering), which he is forbidden to eat when impure, therefore the Israelite who is suffering from a flux and thus rendered impure must let the priest know of his condition, so that he should not be defiled on account of him. See my Hebrew commentary, Vol. II, p. 534 (beginning with the fifth edition).

footnotes: ⁴⁶ Deuteronomy 21:5. The following is the law of plagues or leprosy, which is the subject of the coming sections: “All are qualified to inspect the leprosy-signs, but only a priest may pronounce them impure or pure” (Negaim 3:1). If the priest was unskilled in these laws, a learned person would tell him to say “pure” or “impure” (ibid. ⁴⁷ Mechilta, at beginning. ⁴⁸ As it says in the case of the offerings (above, 1:2, and elsewhere). ⁴⁹ Further, 14:1-2. ⁵⁰ Ibid. ⁵¹ In view of the fact that decisions of purity and impurity in cases where a man or woman saw a flux was not

SE’EITH O SAPACHATH O BAHERETH’ (A RISING, OR A SCAB, OR A BRIGHT SPOT). “These are the names of the plagues, each one whiter than the other.” This is Rashi’s language. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra wrote that “se’eith is a term for ‘burning,’ the word being associated with the expressions: ‘v’hamaseith’ (and the beacon) *began to arise up;*⁵² ‘va’yisa’eim’ (and) David (burned them).⁵³ It is possible that it is called se’eith [literally: ‘uprising,’ ‘swelling’], because it is in the nature of fire to rise upwards. Sapachath is of the root: ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), *I pray;*⁵⁴ ‘v’nispechu’ (and they shall cleave) to the house of Jacob⁵⁵ — signifying a sickness which attaches to one place. Bahereth is of the root, ‘bahir’ (bright) in the skies,⁵⁶ becoming a sort of sign or mark.” [Thus far is Ibn Ezra’s interpretation.] If so, the term se’eith is the name of the plague caused by the bitter green burning fluid [in the body],⁵⁷ Note 264. and bahereth is caused by the white fluid, and sapachath is brought about by a combination of both of these fluids. Now our Rabbis have said:⁵⁸ “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’ and so it is stated in Scripture, And upon all the high mountains, and upon all the hills ‘hanisa’oth’ (that are lifted up),⁵⁹ and sapachath always means ‘attachment,’⁶⁰ and se’eith. To each of these two colors Scripture has added a sapachath — a second shade of it. Thus the number of colors is four. See further, Notes 105 and 107, for the precise nature of these colors and their gradations. and so it is stated in Scripture, ‘sphacheini’ (attach me), I pray.”⁵⁴

footnotes: ⁵² Judges 20:40. ⁵³ II Samuel 5:21. ⁵⁴ I Samuel 2:36. ⁵⁵ Isaiah 14:1. ⁵⁶ Job 37:21. ⁵⁷ See in Seder Vayikra ⁵⁸ Shebuoth 6 b. ⁵⁹ Isaiah 2:14. ⁶⁰ This means as follows: The two principal colors of leprosy-sign are bahereth ⁵⁴ I Samuel 2:36.

AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE PLAGUE BE DEEPER THAN THE SKIN OF THE FLESH. “Every white color appears deep [in contrast to the darker color surrounding it], just as a color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow.” This is Rashi’s language. For this reason when the Rabbi [Rashi] reached the following verse, stating, And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,⁶¹ are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). he wrote, “I do not know the meaning of this.” The sense of Rashi’s statement is as follows: It appeared to him difficult, for since the bright spot is white, it is impossible that the appearance thereof should not be deeper than the skin, even as the color of anything illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow! Now we are in a position to remove this difficulty. For the verses do not speak of the appearance of a plague seeming deeper than the skin, unless two hairs in the plague become white [such being the case in Verse 3 before us]. But when it states [as it does in the following verse], and the hair thereof be not turned white, it says, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin.⁶¹ are based: (a) Any of the four colors of white (see Note 105) which appears in the skin of the flesh, does not of itself render the person impure, unless in addition it has one of the three symptoms of impurity, which are: if the plague has turned a minimum of two black hairs in the white patch in the flesh to white, or some “quick flesh” has appeared in the middle of the plague, or, if not having had one of these symptoms to begin with, the person was shut up for seven days, and then it was seen that the white patch of the plague had spread in the skin. (b) If any of these four colors appear in a place where there was an inflammation or a burning inflammation, the person is rendered impure only by means of one of these two symptoms: hair changing color from black to white, or the spreading of the white patch of the plague in the skin. The appearance of “quick flesh” in this case is not a sign of impurity. (c) If a plague appears in the hair, the symptoms of impurity are one of two: if the plague has caused a minimum of two hairs to turn gold-colored, or if it has spread in the skin. (d) A special lengthy discussion appears in Ramban (further in Verse 29) as to the precise nature of the plague which the Torah calls nethek (Verse 30), and which laws regulate it. Other laws pertinent to these discussions are clearly set forth in the text. Finally, it should be noted that a person shut up or quarantined for a week by the priest is rendered unclean in every respect as a leper that is certified unclean, except that he need not go with unkempt hair and rent garments; also, if declared “clean” by the priest at the end of the week he need not do the cutting off of the hair and the bringing of the bird-offerings etc., as they are required of the leper that had been certified unclean when healed of his leprosy (see further Chapter 14) (Megillah 8 b). For such is the distinctive characteristic of anything illuminated by the sun: if there is something black scattered about in it, there will not be an appearance of depth to a person who looks at it. Now hair in its natural state is dark, and therefore destroys the appearance of depth of the plague. When the hairs in the plague have turned white or yellow,⁶² then only does the whiteness of the plague shine brightly, and appears to anyone who looks at it from a distance as if it were deeper [than the skin of the flesh]. Yet despite all this, that which the Rabbi [Rashi] has said — “Every white color is deeper [in contrast to dark colors surrounding it]” — does not appear to me to be correct. For the Rabbis have said:⁵⁸ “The word se’eith is always an expression of ‘rising,’” and the se’eith is white, as it is written, ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),⁶³, Verse 10. and the Rabbis have further said:⁶⁴ “Se’eith is [as white] as white wool, and its second [subsidiary] shade is as white as the membrane of an egg.” Thus se’eith is very white, and [according to Rashi] it should appear very deep, so why then do the Rabbis call it “rising?” Scripture also does not state anywhere concerning the color of se’eith that it is deeper than the skin!⁶⁵ (a white rising) or ‘bahereth’ (a bright spot) … and the priest shall look; and behold, if the appearance thereof be ‘shaphal’ (lower) than the skin. Now the word shaphal (lower) refers obviously to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned before. But according to Rashi, Ramban asks, why does it not state concerning the color of se’eith that it is ‘amok min ha’or’ (“deeper” than the skin) instead of “lower” than the skin, when, as Rashi put it, “Every white color is ‘deeper’ [in contrast to the black surrounding it]?” And here too (in Verse 3 before us) it merely says that the appearance of ‘the plague’ be deeper, but it does not say so about the se’eith! And in the Torah Kohanim the Rabbis have said:⁶⁶, Negaim 1:4. “What is the meaning of the term se’eith? It is ‘rising,’ just as the color of the shadow is higher than that of anything illuminated by the sun.” And if every white color is deep [in contrast to a dark color surrounding it, as Rashi put it], then the fact is the opposite [of what the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim]! Perhaps we may say that the terms se’eith signifies “rising” in contrast to bahereth, so that if you place both of them together, the bahereth will appear as if illuminated by the sun, and the se’eith at its side will have the appearance of the shadow, while both of them in relation to the skin [which is darker] will appear as deeper.⁶⁷ signifies “rising,” for it is only in contrast to bahereth which is bright-white like snow, that the duller color of se’eith appears “higher.” Thus there is no contradiction between this statement of the Rabbis and that which Rashi said, that “Every white color is deep etc.,” since the above interpretation of the Rabbis concerning se’eith was with reference to a contrast of a still brighter color. It still remains to explain why Scripture does not speak of se’eith as appearing “deeper” than the skin, but instead speaks of it as being “lower” than the skin (see Note 65 above). This point Ramban will now proceed to explain. Yet Scripture [nonetheless] does not speak of the color of se’eith as being deeper than the skin! The explanation of this matter appears to me to be as follows. There is a kind of white which shines into and dazzles the eyes just as the appearance of the sun does, with the result that the eyes are incapable of receiving the intense color of that whiteness, and therefore it seems to him [a person looking] as if it were deep, just as the color illuminated by the sun appears deeper than the shadow, because the eye can receive the darker color and it is fixed thereon, whereas the white color scatters the visionary power and appears further removed from it, and therefore seems to be deep. Thus the whiteness of bahereth which is a bright white like snow,⁶⁸ causes the visionary power to be weakened, just as it becomes weak in a place illuminated by the sun, provided that there is no black hair in the bahereth, in which case the visionary power concentrates on the black and from there it spreads out to the whole appearance of the plague and does not “flee” from it [on account of its intense whiteness, and therefore it does not appear to be deeper than the skin].⁶⁹ — on which Rashi had commented, “I do not know the meaning of this,” for the reason explained above. Ramban explains it on the basis of physical laws of nature, that since the verse continues to state, and the hair thereof be not turned white, therefore the visionary power of the eye concentrates on the black hair, and from there it spreads forth to the white plague, and consequently the whiteness does not appear deeper than the skin. Now the plague known as se’eith is also white, but its whiteness is not intense [as that of bahereth]⁷⁰, as mentioned above, is as white as white wool. and it does not weaken the visionary power; therefore the eye spreads out [over the whole plague] and sees it closely with the result that the se’eith appears near to it and elevated, just as when one looks at the stars which appear to be high in the heavens. Now in the case of an inflammation [in the skin, in which symptoms of leprosy occurred], Scripture mentions two colors, a white ‘se’eith’ (rising) or a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot)⁷¹ intermingled with red, and states concerning it, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin⁷², Verse 20. At this point Ramban interprets the phrase quoted as referring back to both se’eith and bahereth. Further on he will explain it as referring only to bahereth. See further, Note 73. but does not say “deeper” [than the skin], because although that bahereth is an intense white, the redness in it lessens the “depth” thereof and makes it appear only slightly “lower” [than the skin]. But by way of the plain meaning of Scripture the phrase behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin only refers back to the bahereth, but of the white ‘se’eith’ (rising)⁷¹ it does not say so.⁷³ in the nature of every form of white to appear deeper than the skin [unlike Rashi who stated categorically, “Every white color is deep etc.,” as a result of which Rashi found it difficult to explain the phrase in Verse 4: and the appearance thereof be ‘not’ deeper than the skin, as mentioned above] and since se’eith is only as white as white wool, unlike the bahereth which is bright-white like snow, therefore Scripture does not speak of it as appearing “lower” than the skin. Instead, the phrase, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ than the skin (Verse 20) refers back only to the white bahereth. It is only according to Rashi who wrote that “Every white color appears deeper etc.” that the phrase in Verse 20, behold, it be in sight ‘lower’ etc. refers back to both se’eith and bahereth mentioned in Verse 19. And concerning both of them [se’eith and bahereth] Scripture says [in the case of an inflammation in the skin], But behold, if there be no white hairs therein, and it be not lower than the skin, but be dim,⁷⁴ for on account of the redness [which is intermingled in the white], and the blackness of the hair, the plague has lost even its appearance of being “lower” [than the skin] and is only “dim.” In the case of a burning by fire Scripture mentions, and the quick flesh of the burnt part have a white ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), reddish-white or white,⁷⁵ and then it continues [in the following verse] to state, *and it be in sight ‘deeper’ than the skin;*⁷⁶ [that refers back only] to “the white” [in the preceding verse, but not to the reddish-white, which, as explained above, does not appear to be “deeper” than the skin]. Then it states further on, But if the priest look on it, and behold, there be no white hair in the ‘bahereth’ (bright spot), and it be no lower than the skin.⁷⁷ In this case He mentioned the matter of being “lower” or not with reference [also] to “the reddish-white” [in Verse 24], thus teaching that the appearance of the plague either as “deep” or “low” is an indication of impurity, and that they are only pure if there is no appearance at all [of the bright spot] being “lower” than the skin, but instead it is only “dim.”⁷⁸ (bright spot) stay in its place … but it be dim … the priest shall pronounce him clean (Verse 28). Now the Torah desired the purity of Israel and the cleanliness of their bodies, and it therefore took measures to keep this sickness [of leprosy] far from them at its very inception, for these colors [of the plagues] are not yet the real leprosy, but they lead to it. Doctors state in their books: “We should fear beharoth [bright spots in the skin of the flesh] more than the leprosy itself.” That is the reason why Scripture calls them when they are just beginning, the affliction of leprosy,⁷⁹ meaning an affliction of a leprous nature, but not yet the actual leprosy. It is when the symptoms of impurity are clearly identified, after the leper has been put in quarantine [for a trial period], that Scripture says, it is leprosy⁸⁰ meaning that it is possible that it is a genuine form of leprosy. At times Scripture will say of impurity, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction of leprosy,⁸¹ the meaning thereof being to state that the priest shall declare him impure at once, for it is an affliction of a leprous nature that will surely result in actual leprosy, and therefore it is advisable that he be separated from the people from that moment on. Similarly, and the priest shall pronounce him unclean; it is an affliction,⁸² means that it is a great affliction which will not be healed [easily], but instead will grow the whole day and spread [into the skin] as it has done till now. As to that which Rashi stated [in Verse 3 before us] that: “It is a Scriptural ordinance [the reason of which is not known] that hair that has become white is a symptom of impurity” — *this is the interpretation of the thing;*⁸³ it is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon⁸⁴, 4:21. that person, for a plague which does not turn the hair white, is only an ugly spot in the skin, but not a secretion which will cause any sickness.

footnotes: ⁶¹ Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria ⁶¹ Verse 4. At this point it is necessary to explain some of the basic principles on which the following discussions of Ramban in this whole section of Tazria ⁶² Further, Verse 30. ⁵⁸ Shebuoth 6 b. ⁶³ Ibid. ⁶⁴ Shebuoth 5 b. ⁶⁵ Further in Verses 19-20 Scripture states: And in the place of the boil there is ‘se’eith l’vanah’ ⁶⁶ Torath Kohanim Tazria ⁶⁷ Thus we have explained the saying of the Rabbis that se’eith ⁶⁸ Negaim 1:1. ⁶⁹ This explains Verse 4 which states: And if the bright spot be white in the skin of his flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin ⁷⁰ The color of se’eith ⁷¹ Further, Verse 19. ⁷² Ibid. ⁷¹ Further, Verse 19. ⁷³ For since Ramban has explained above that it is not ⁷⁴ Verse 21. ⁷⁵ Verse 24. ⁷⁶ Verse 25. ⁷⁷ Verse 26. ⁷⁸ And if the ‘bahereth’ ⁷⁹ Verses 2, 3, 9, etc. ⁸⁰ Verse 8. ⁸¹ Verse 25. ⁸² Verse 22. ⁸³ Daniel 5:26. ⁸⁴ Ibid.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL LOOK AT HIM ON THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE STAY ‘B’EINAV.’ “This means in its original color and size.”⁸⁵ is “in his eyes,” i.e., the eyes of the priest examining the plague. Ramban will further on stress this literal meaning of the word. This is Rashi’s language. Similarly, ‘v’eino’ (and the appearance thereof) *was as the appearance of bdellium;*⁸⁶ and so also, ‘k’ein’ (like the color of) the crystal ice.⁸⁷ as meaning “its appearance,” thus making the sense of the verse to be: and, behold, if the plague stay ‘in its appearance.’ But in the Torath Kohanim we have been taught as follows:⁸⁸ “[From the expression here] I know only that the plague so appeared [i.e., in its original size] in his own [i.e., the priest’s] eyes. Whence do I know that the same law applies if it so appeared in the eyes of his pupil? Scripture therefore says [in Verse 37]. But if the scall stay ‘b’einav.’” Now if so, the meaning of the verse here would be: “and if the plague is at a stay in the sight of the aforementioned priest,” namely that it has remained as it was, neither having changed its place nor having spread in the skin, wheresoever the priest looks [then he shall shut him up for another seven days]. The usage [of the term a’yin (eye)] is often found in the words of the Sages.⁸⁹ (Sages) is evidently used by Ramban here not in the strict sense of the term, as referring to the Sages of the Talmud, as I have not found this expression in Talmudic literature. It must then be a reference to the later scholars in whose writings this expression abounds. Thus: “So it appears in my eyes.” So also you find [in Scripture]: O man of G-d, I pray thee, let my life be precious ‘b’einecha’ (in thy sight],⁹⁰ meaning, in your opinion and thought. Thus the verse here alludes to the principle that the priest in examining whether the plague has extended in the skin need only judge it as he sees it, but it is not necessary that [he base his decision] upon measuring the plague.

footnotes: ⁸⁵ The literal meaning of b’einav ⁸⁶ Numbers 11:7. ⁸⁷ Ezekiel 1:22. These two verses bear out Rashi’s interpretation of einav ⁸⁸ Further, Verse 37. Thus if after having shut the person up in a house for seven days, the priest is in doubt whether the plague has spread [in which case he would pronounce it at once as a genuine case of leprosy], but his son or pupil who saw it at the beginning says definitely that the affliction did not spread, the priest may follow their opinion and may shut him up for another seven days. See my Hebrew commentary p. 70, for further discussion of this point. ⁸⁹ The term chachamim ⁹⁰ II Kings 1:14.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE HIM A SECOND TIME THE SEVENTH DAY, AND BEHOLD, IF THE PLAGUE BE ‘KEIHAH’ (DIM), AND THE PLAGUE BE NOT SPREAD IN THE SKIN, THE PRIEST SHALL PRONOUNCE HIM CLEAN. Rashi commented: “Keihah means it has become paler⁹¹ (plague) is masculine, and keihah (pale) is in the feminine, the word keihah cannot be an adjective to nega [meaning: “if the plague is pale”]. Instead, it must mean, as Rashi points out, “if the plague has become pale,” serving as a verb. than its [former] color. [This allows the inference] that if the plague remains in its former color and has not extended in the skin, he is impure.” This indeed is the sense of the verse.⁹² But the interpretation of our Rabbis is not so, for we have been taught in the Mishnah:⁹³ “To cause to be put in quarantine [for a second week] such a plague which continues unchanged at the end of the first week; to pronounce pure such a plague which continues unchanged by the end of the second week.” And in the Torath Kohanim the Rabbis have expressly said⁹⁴ that in the case of garments, if the plague is at a stay at the end of the first week, they are to be put in quarantine [for a second week], and if it be at a stay at the end of the second week, they are to be burnt; but in the case of a person, if the plague be at a stay at the end of the first week the priest is to put him in quarantine for another week, but if at the end of the second week it is still at a stay he is to pronounce him pure. And in Tractate Megillah the Rabbis have further said:⁹⁵ “This excludes a leper who has been put in quarantine for a week, whose state of leprosy is determined not by his bodily condition, but merely by days.”⁹⁶). Now if it were necessary that the plague should become dim, then his purity would be dependent upon his bodily condition! Rashi himself explained it there in such language, saying that the leper’s purity is not dependent on the physical state of the plague, for if at the end of seven days a symptom of impurity — white hair or extension of the plague — is not found, the priest is to pronounce him pure although the plague has stayed in its appearance, that is at the end of the second week.⁹⁷. The discussion here relates only to the end of the second week. Rather, this is what the Sages said:⁹⁸ at the end of the second week, whether the plague has paled from the color of snow to [the shade of white of] the lime used in the Sanctuary, or like the white of an egg’s membrane, or even if it has become stronger, namely, that it was at first like the lime [used in the Sanctuary] and then [at the end of the second week] it had become bright-white like snow, and all the more so if it remained in its original color — as long as it did not spread in the skin, the priest pronounces it pure. If so, the interpretation of this verse is as follows: “if the plague be ‘keihah,’ meaning that it has turned into the color of another plague, such as from that of snow to that of lime, since it has not spread in the skin, the priest shall pronounce him clean; it is but a scab.” For in order that one should not say, “since the plague has changed into the color of another plague it must be inspected from anew,” Scripture therefore expressly taught that he is deemed pure. The same law applies if the color became stronger, since Scripture has already taught you that a change from color to color is not a symptom of impurity, but rather is considered as if it is at a stay, and as long as it did not spread in the skin [the afflicted person] is pure. Should you ask: “But why did Scripture not mention expressly the case of a change to a stronger color [as being pure], and we would know that this is all the more so if it became paler?” [The answer is that Scripture] came to teach you that although it became paler, if it spread in the skin he is nevertheless impure. Now the meaning of the word keihah is that the plague has become paler, changing to one of the colors of leprosy-signs, such as from that of snow to that of an egg’s membrane, which can still be a leprosy-sign. But if it has become paler than the colors of leprosy-signs, in that case the person is already healed, and there is no longer a plague; thus even a spreading thereof no longer renders him impure at all. In a similar manner to this presentation has it been explained in the Torath Kohanim.⁹⁸

footnotes: ⁹¹ Since the term nega ⁹² For since the verse states two conditions for the priest’s pronouncement that the person is pure — namely, if the plague has become paler, and the plague be not spread in the skin — it is obvious that if only the first condition has been met, but not the second, that the person is impure. This is the meaning of Ramban’s comment on Rashi’s statement. ⁹³ Negaim 1:3. ⁹⁴ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:8. ⁹⁵ Megillah 8 b. ⁹⁶ “For if on the seventh day the symptoms of impurity are not found in the plague, namely, the black hair in it has not turned white, or that the plague did not spread in the skin, the priest will pronounce him pure, even though the plague is still at a stay” (Rashi, ibid. ⁹⁷ If the plague has stayed in its appearance at the end of the first week that the infected person was shut up, Verse 5 clearly states, then the priest shall shut him up seven days more ⁹⁸ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:6. ⁹⁸ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 2:6.

AND THE PRIEST SHALL SEE, AND, BEHOLD, IF THERE BE A WHITE RISING IN THE SKIN, AND IT HAVE TURNED THE HAIR WHITE, AND THERE BE QUICK RAW FLESH IN THE RISING. The meaning of this verse is not that it is necessary for both to be present, namely, the white hair and the quick flesh [before the afflicted person is declared impure], since in the first section Scripture declared him impure because of white hair alone;⁹⁹ similarly, the appearance of the live flesh alone is a symptom of impurity. If so, the meaning of the verse is: “and it have turned the hair white, or there be quick raw flesh in the rising.” It mentions here white hair in the case of se’eith (rising) although it stated it already in the case of bahereth (bright spot),¹⁰⁰, Verse 4. in order to teach us that in the case of both colors white hair is a symptom of impurity. Our Rabbis have explained¹⁰¹ that the reason [why white hair is mentioned here when it has already been said above that it is a symptom of impurity] is in order to establish the minimum size of the quick flesh [mentioned here], that it must be large enough to contain the white hair, [the smallest number implied] being two.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ Above, Verse 3. ¹⁰⁰ Ibid. ¹⁰¹ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 3:7.

AND IF THE LEPROSY BREAK OUT ABROAD IN THE SKIN, AND THE LEPROSY COVER ALL THE SKIN OF THE PLAGUE¹⁰² literally: “all the skin of the plague.” It is generally translated though: “all the skin of him that hath the plague.” As explained further, Ramban also understands the verse to apply only where the leprosy covered the whole body, while the expression all the skin of the plague serves to teach us some new matter, as stated in the text. FROM HIS HEAD EVEN TO HIS FOOT … [HE IS CLEAN]. Now the breaking out of the leprosy is not deemed a symptom of purity, until it spreads over the entire body, except for the places which the Sages enumerated in the Mishnah,¹⁰³ which do not prevent a person who has turned completely white [from being pronounced pure]. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase all the skin of the plague [which would indicate that only the area of the plague need be turned white]? Rather, the meaning thereof is as follows: “and the leprosy cover all the skin of the plague and from his head even to his foot.” Scripture is thus stating that the place of the plague and the whole body have turned white, but if the whole body has become white, and the appearance of [the area of] the plague has turned to bohak¹⁰⁴). Now the verse there concludes that bohak is pure. But Ramban here points out that if the leprosy broke out and covered all the person’s body, except that the original place of the plague turned into bohak, he is impure, since before the rule of the present verse applies, the leprosy must spread also to cover the skin of the plague. The same rule applies even if the skin of the plague became completely healed, as mentioned next in the text. or it became healed, the person is impure.

footnotes: ¹⁰² It is clear from Ramban’s words further on, that he interpreted the Hebrew eth kol or hanega ¹⁰³ Negaim 8:5. ¹⁰⁴ Further, Verse 39. “Lentil-like spots, and between the spots the flesh shows bright with a pure brightness” (Rashi, ibid.

IF A MAN OR WOMAN HATH AN AFFLICTION UPON THE HEAD OR THE BEARD. “Scripture intends to differentiate between a plague which is on a place where hair grows, and a plague on the flesh, for as regarding a plague on the flesh the symptom of impurity is white hair, while the symptom of a plague on a place where the hair grows is gold-colored hair — that the black hair has turned into gold-colored. 30. ‘NETHEK HU’ (IT IS A SCALL). This is the name of the plague on a place where hair grows.” This is Rashi’s language. It would appear from this language that the difference between a plague upon the head or beard and a plague in the skin of the flesh, is that which Rashi mentioned, namely, the white hair and the gold-colored; thus if a plague occurs in any of its four colors¹⁰⁵ (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. in a place where hair grows upon the head or beard, and if the hair became gold-colored, then the person is impure, just as he is impure if the hair turned white in a plague on the skin of the flesh. But how is it possible to say so! Rashi himself has written [further on]: “As the leprosy appeareth in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶ [It is like the color of the leprosy which is mentioned in the section dealing with plagues of the skin of the flesh, namely] that it makes one impure by means of any of the four white colors,¹⁰⁵ (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. and it is not to be treated like the color of the nethakim (scalls) on the place where hair grows, which do not render a person impure by reason of the four colors: the se’eith and its secondary shade, and bahereth and its secondary shade!”¹⁰⁷ is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). Now if [a nethek] does not render the person impure by means of one of these four colors,¹⁰⁵ (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. then by what color and under what condition does it render one impure? Scripture has mentioned only the signs necessary for declaring him absolutely impure, namely, if gold-colored hair appeared in the nethek or spreading thereof took place¹⁰⁸ [but, according to Rashi, Scripture has left unspecified what color the nethek must be originally, in order that it be subject to inspection]! Indeed, it seems that the Rabbi [Rashi] thought Scripture informed us of the name of the plague upon the head or beard by stating ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall)¹⁰⁹ meaning that this is its particular name, the designation by which it is recognized. Thus Scripture mentioned in the case of the plagues [in the skin of the flesh] their names and their colors, namely, ‘bahereth l’vanah’ (a bright spot which is white),¹¹⁰ ‘se’eith l’vanah’ (a white rising),¹¹¹, Verse 10. and in the case of the head it also mentioned its name [namely, nethek], for by that designation it is known, and that name indeed Scripture declared to be impure, and then it went back and explained the symptoms [of the nethek] for the person to be declared absolutely impure at the end [i.e., after he had been put in quarantine for a week]. This is the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] opinion on the nethek (scall). This interpretation of Rashi’s opinion is further borne out by his words when he said that the sense of the following section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head¹¹² is to say that if a man’s hair falls off his head and he becomes bald, he is clean; that is, “he is clean from the impurity of nethakim (scalls in a hair-spot) on the head,” and he is no longer rendered impure by the kind of plague called nethek, but instead he is subject to the laws of a plague on the skin of the flesh, [namely] se’eith and its secondary shade, for since there is no hair there [after becoming bald] he is excluded from the law applying to the head or the beard. But all this is not so. For as long as the head or beard contain hair, they do not render the person impure at all by means of any of the colors of leprosy [since they are not “the skin of the body”]. But when baldness affects a certain part of the head, the hair falling out from its very roots, and that place becomes smooth and clear of any hair, and then there grows in that baldness a gold-colored thin hair¹⁰⁹ — that is the impure plague [dealt with here]. It is for that reason that it is called nethek [of the root nothak — “to tear away”] because the hair has become removed from there, and it is not merely a name, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote. Rather, for as his name is, so is he,¹¹³ for [in order that the law of nethek should apply], it is necessary that the hair falls out [on the head or the beard] in a place [at least] the size of a bean, and after the natural falling out of this first hair from that place, if that gold-colored “afflicted” hair springs up, it is a symptom of impurity. This does not apply if the gold-colored hair come there before the baldness. So also we have been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁴ “If [a bahereth] appeared on the head or the beard,¹¹⁵ (scall), and not by a bahereth; (a bright white spot). Thus when the bahereth first appeared on the head or the beard, the person remained pure. Later on when he became bald, in which case the law of bahereth might have applied, he also remains pure, because the bahereth preceded the baldness. and then the head or the beard became bald, they are pure. If it were on the head or the beard before these grew hair, and they then grew hair and again became bald, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov declares them impure, since both in the beginning and at the end they were impure. But the Sages declare them to be pure.” And with regards to gold-colored hair which precede [the nethek] we have also been taught in a Mishnah:¹¹⁶, 10:4. “If gold-colored hair preceded the nethek (scall) it is pure. Rabbi Yehudah declares it impure. Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: It neither renders the person impure, nor does it afford him protection.”¹¹⁷ provides that if there be two black hairs in it, the person is pure [although all the other hair have turned gold-colored]. But if there be in it two gold-colored hairs that were there before the nethek came, and turned the other black hair gold-colored, they do not afford protection to the nethek, and the person is impure. Thus Rabbi Eliezer’s statement: “It neither renders the person impure [if all the hair turned gold-colored before the nethek appeared], nor does it afford protection” [thus we do not say that since it was naturally gold-colored before the nethek appeared, and not as a result of it, it is considered like black hair which renders the person pure, because although it is not in itself a symptom of the plague, it is nonetheless unable to protect the person from impurity unless its natural colors is black]. This whole topic is similarly taught also in the Sifra.¹¹⁸ 8:6. The reason why Scripture does not mention “the baldness” at first [but instead begins Verse 29 before us by stating: If a man or woman hath an affliction upon the head or the beard], is because it mentioned with reference to the plague on the head or beard a “deep appearance” and “gold-colored hair,”¹⁰⁹ and it is impossible that the appearance thereof should be deep in the same way that the color of the sun appears deeper than the shadow, as long as a person’s black natural hair is still upon him. Therefore Scripture spoke about the customary way of people, for when plagues come upon their head, [that part of the head] first becomes bald, and then a plague arises in the baldness, in which the thin short gold-colored hair grows. Then [in Verse 30] Scripture explains ‘nethek hu’ (it is a scall), in order to make it quite clear that he is not to be declared impure unless there was a baldness. Now in the opinion of most commentators¹¹⁹, 8:1, and in 16:1. this plague, namely, the nethek, need not have a bahereth (a bright spot) or se’eith (rising) nor their subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷ is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). nor any change of appearance in the skin of the head, but as soon as the hair fell out from a spot the size of a bean on the head or beard, and is entirely uprooted from its roots, that is the plague, and if thin gold-colored hair appears in it, the person is impure. This is the leprosy of the head or of the beard.¹⁰⁹ For Scripture first declared the person impure if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin, and there be in it gold-colored thin hair,¹⁰⁹ and then it mentioned that if the appearance thereof is not deeper than the skin, that the plague must be shut up for a week;¹²⁰ then it declared him to be impure if [after this week] the nethek spread in the skin,¹²¹ the sense thereof being that [in the case of the spreading of the nethek] the appearance thereof need not be deeper than the skin, nor different in any way [for him to be declared impure]. Now surely these two symptoms [of impurity in the nethek], namely, spreading of the plague and appearance of gold-colored hair, are alike in their laws. If so, the verses intend to teach us that whether the appearance of the nethek is as deep as the appearance of a bahereth, or whether it is not as deep or is not different in any way [from the rest of the skin], as soon as the baldness occurs, the person is rendered impure if gold-colored hair appears in it or if the nethek spreads in the skin. There are many Beraithoth¹²², Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. in the Sifra¹²², Note 65. On Sifra, see ibid., Note 121. taught on this subject. Yet [despite all this] it would appear that after the hair falls off from a spot on the head, it is not to be deemed a plague until a bahereth or its subsidiary species appears in that bald spot, or a se’eith or its subsidiary species,¹⁰⁷ is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). and then the bahereth or se’eith renders the person impure if it grows gold-colored hair, just [as the bahereth or se’eith] render impure if in the skin of the flesh the black hair has turned white.¹²³ For our verse which mentions an affliction upon the head or the beard, and then states, and, behold, if the appearance thereof be deeper than the skin,¹⁰⁹ is alluding to the colors of the plagues previously mentioned,¹⁰⁵ (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107. meaning specifically bahereth and its subsidiaries and also se’eith and its subsidiaries.¹⁰⁷ is the secondary shade of bahereth, and krum beitza is the subsidiary species of se’eith. A priest who does not distinguish between these four shades of white, and does not know them by name and how they are related to each other, has no authority to inspect the plague (Rambam, above, Note 105). He may, however, bring with him a learned person — even if he be an Israelite — who upon examining it will direct him to say “pure” or “impure” etc. (Rambam, ibid., 9:2). And this section is singled out in order to be made the subject of a special statement not similar to the general proposition, namely, that the colors of the plagues on the head do not render a person impure until the hair has fallen off. The effect of this is sometimes a more lenient ruling, and sometimes a more stringent one. The more lenient ruling is that they do not render the person impure by means of white hair, and the more stringent one is that he is to be pronounced impure by reason of the gold-colored hair. And the interpretation of the verse, And if the priest see the plague of the scall, and, behold, the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin, and there be no black hair in it, then the priest shall shut up [him that hath] the plague of the scall seven days,¹²⁰ is similar to that mentioned above [in the section dealing with the plagues of the skin of the flesh]: And if ‘bahereth’ (the bright spot) be white in the skin of the flesh, and the appearance thereof be not deeper than the skin,¹¹⁰ for the expression ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall) [here in Verse 31] alludes to the principle that the [four] colors of the “plagues” apply to the nethek as well. This matter requires further study of the Tosephta¹²⁴ to Tractate Negaim. For we have been taught there as follows:¹²⁵ “Nethakim (scalls) cause impurity in all colors, even white on black or black on white, and they cause impurity by means of thin yellow hair which appears to be gold-colored.” Thus far [is the language of the Tosephta]. It would appear from this text that there has to be in the bald part some [distinguishing] color of a plague, either white on the skin of a black-haired man, like the [four] colors of plagues, or even a black plague on the skin of a white-haired man, like “the black murphia” which doctors mention, since Scripture always speaks of ‘nega hanethek’ (the plague of the scall),¹²⁰ indicating that there has to be a plague in the nethek, but it did not specify any colors for them as it did in the case of [the plagues of] the skin of the flesh. And the second section, And the man whose hair is fallen off his head,¹¹² teaches that the law of nethakim applies only if the hair falls off the middle of the head, and hair remains surrounding the nethek on all sides. But if the hair falls off from the back of the head, or towards the face, and that whole side becomes bald [and a plague appeared therein], its status is not to be determined by the symptoms of impurity of the head or beard [namely, gold-colored hair or the spreading of the nethek], but rather by the symptoms of plagues of the skin of the flesh [namely, the appearance of white hair or the spreading of the plague or quick flesh]. The reason for this [distinction between the various locations of the baldness of the head] is that it is in the nature of many people that some of their hair at the sides of the head, in the back or in front becomes bald, and the falling off of the hair there is no sign of sickness, but instead is like the rest of the body. But when the hair falls off from the middle of the head, the place where there normally is hair, it can only be a plague which caused it, that plague in our language being termed tinim,¹²⁶. and in Arabic it is called al sa’afah. Accordingly Scripture excluded from this law hair which falls out from the front of his head and the back, since it is usual for people to become bald at those places. And the verse which states, But if there be ‘bakarachath’ (in the bald towards the back of the head), or ‘bagabachath’ (the bald forehead), a reddish-white plague,¹²⁷ means that these parts of the head convey impurity as does the rest of the body — by the [four] colors of plagues whether there is a reddish mixture in the white or it be a plain white. Scripture further states as the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh.¹⁰⁶ This means that [if there is baldness towards the back of the head or the forehead] he is also certified absolutely as impure by quick flesh or the spreading of the plague, which is “the appearance of leprosy” that is certified absolutely as impure in plagues of the skin of the flesh. Now our Rabbis have mentioned that it is not certified as impure by means of white hair, just as we have been taught [in a Mishnah]:¹²⁸ “Quick flesh causes impurity bakarachath (in baldness towards the back of the head), or bagabachath (baldness in the forehead), whereas it is not so with the white hair.” It is also so expressed in the Torath Kohanim.¹²⁹ But some of the commentators¹³⁰ stated that the sense of the Scriptural sections is to differentiate between a person afflicted with a nethek [which is discussed in Verses 29-37] and with baldness [as mentioned in Verses 40-44]; and the meaning of the matter is that karachath and gabachath both denote plucking out of the hair in such a manner that it will never grow again, such as where he applied a certain ointment to the hair of his head which caused it to fall out, or where it fell out at its roots naturally, when the moisture [feeding it] dried up. Thus the meaning of this section according to this opinion is that at first Scripture spoke [in Verses 29-37] of nethek, which is a falling off or cutting of the hair, similar to the expressions: ‘v’nathuk v’charuth’ (or torn off, or cut);¹³¹ as soon as the soles of the priests’ feet ‘nithku’ (were drawn up) unto the dry ground.¹³² Then Scripture states [in Verses 40-44] that if the head be yimareit, meaning that the hair was plucked out by force, thus leaving the bald and shiny like burnished brass,¹³³ similar to that which is written, it is furbished that it may glitter¹³⁴ which as is known will never grow hair again — that is not a nethek, but rather this man ‘keireiach hu’ (he is bald in the back of his head)¹³⁵ or gibeiach hu’ (he is bald near his forehead),¹³⁶ as other people who are bald, and he is clean¹³⁷. But if there be in this baldness towards the back or front of the head one of the [four] colors of plagues¹⁰⁵ (bright-white like snow), se’eith (white as white wool); sid ha’heichal (the white lime used in the Sanctuary), and krum beitza (the membrane of an egg). Of these four shades the whitest is bahereth, the next is se’eith, the next sid, and the dullest is krum beitza (Rambam Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath 1:2). See further Note 107., he will be subject to the same law of impurity as is the appearance of leprosy in the skin of the flesh, and through their symptoms, namely, quick flesh and the spreading of the plague in the skin [after having been shut up for a week]; except that the Sages in their interpretation excluded from [these symptoms of impurity] white hair [which in the skin of the flesh is a sign of impurity but not in baldness towards the back or front of the head]. The reason for this is that the hair of the head has been plucked out in such a way that it will never grow again, and even if a few hair appear by chance, they will never be black [so that they could through turning white on account of the plague, serve as a sign of impurity], nor will they have the characteristics of hair, but they will be merely some weak form thereof and white. This is the opinion of the French scholars in the commentary to Tractate Negaim.¹³⁰ The sense of the Mishnayoth and Beraithoth taught there [in that tractate] tend to support their words. If so, nethek [mentioned in Verses 29-37] is the sickness [called in Arabic] sa’afah [as stated above], or the well-known sicknesses called “the sickness of the fox,” and “the path of the snake,” all these being forms of sickness which can be remedied [so that the hair grows again]; but “the plucking out” of the hair [mentioned in Verses 40-44] is a form of baldness for which there is no help or remedy at all.

footnotes: ¹⁰⁵ The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth ¹⁰⁶ Further, Verse 43. ¹⁰⁵ The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth ¹⁰⁷ Sid ha’heichal ¹⁰⁵ The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth ¹⁰⁸ Verses 30, 36. ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹¹⁰ Above, Verse 4. ¹¹¹ Ibid. ¹¹² Further, Verse 40. ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹¹³ I Samuel 25:25. ¹¹⁴ Negaim 7:1. ¹¹⁵ Now the head or the beard become impure only by a nethek ¹¹⁶ Ibid. ¹¹⁷ The law of hair which has become gold-colored because of the nethek ¹¹⁸ Torath Kohanim, Tazria ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹¹⁹ So clearly set forth by Rabad in Mishneh Torah, Hilchoth Tum’ath Tzara’ath ¹⁰⁷ Sid ha’heichal ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹²⁰ Verse 31. ¹²¹ Verse 36. ¹²² See in Seder Vayikra ¹²² See in Seder Vayikra ¹⁰⁷ Sid ha’heichal ¹²³ Above, Verse 3. ¹⁰⁹ Verse 30. ¹⁰⁵ The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth ¹⁰⁷ Sid ha’heichal ¹²⁰ Verse 31. ¹¹⁰ Above, Verse 4. ¹²⁴ Literally: “Addition.” The Tosephta is a collection of Beraithoth, compiled by Rabbi Chiya, soon after the Mishnah was completed by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi. The books of the Tosephta follow closely those of the Mishnah. Hence the expression here, “the Tosephta to Tractate Negaim.” ¹²⁵ Tosephta Negaim 1:2. ¹²⁰ Verse 31. ¹¹² Further, Verse 40. ¹²⁶ In one Ramban manuscript: tirna ¹²⁷ Verse 42. ¹⁰⁶ Further, Verse 43. ¹²⁸ Negaim 4:3. ¹²⁹ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 11:2. ¹³⁰ Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74. ¹³¹ Further, 22:24. ¹³² Joshua 4:18. ¹³³ I Kings 7:45. ¹³⁴ Ezekiel 21:15. ¹³⁵ Verse 40. ¹³⁶ Verse 41. ¹³⁷ Verses 40-41. ¹⁰⁵ The four colors of the plagues are: bahereth ¹³⁰ Found in the commentary of Rabbeinu Shimshon of Sens to Negaim 10:10. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 74.

THEN SHALL HE BE SHAVEN, BUT ‘V’ETH HANETHEK’ (THE SCALL) SHALL HE NOT SHAVE. In line with the plain meaning of Scripture the verse warns that he should not use a razor on the place of the nethek, for even though there is no hair on it, yet if he passes the razor over it the skin will be scratched causing hair to grow in it; for such is the nature of people who have scabs on their heads, and all those who make their hair to fall off, to scratch the place on the head and also to make certain cuts in it with a knife. But in the Torath Kohanim the Sages interpreted the verse as follows:¹³⁸ “But the ‘nethek’ shall he not shave. But what is there to shave there?” That is to say, has not the hair fallen off from it? [So what need is there for Scripture to warn him not to shave it?] “Rather, the verse means, around the nethek he is not to shave. How can we explain this? He shaves the space outside it, but leaves [a circle] of two hairs [width] next to the nethek, so that it should be possible to discern if it spreads.” It is this which Onkelos translated: “and he shall shave around the scall, and that which is within the scall he shall not shave,” for he is to leave on all its sides a row of two hairs in order to recognize [at the end of seven days] if the nethek has spread [in which case the priest will pronounce him impure]. And the meaning of the word v’eth [v’eth hanethek] is then like the expression, and David came near ‘eth’ the people, and he saluted them,¹³⁹ which means that he came near them but he did not enter into their midst. [Here too it would mean, “and ‘in’ the nethek itself he shall not shave.”] Or it may be that the meaning of v’eth is like im (with), with the word asher (which) missing, the verse thus stating: “and that [i.e., the hair] which is ‘with’ the nethek he shall not shave.” There are many such cases in Scripture.

footnotes: ¹³⁸ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 9:7. ¹³⁹ I Samuel 30:21.

AND WHEN THE PLAGUE OF LEPROSY IS IN A GARMENT. This is not in the natural order of things, nor does it ever happen in the world [outside Israel], and similarly leprosy of houses¹⁴⁰ [is not a natural phenomenon]. But when Israel is wholly devoted to G-d, then His spirit is upon them always, to maintain their bodies, clothes and houses in a good appearance. Thus as soon as one of them commits a sin or transgression, a deformity appears in his flesh, or on his garment, or in his house, revealing that G-d has turned aside from him. It is for this reason that Scripture states, And I shall put the plague of leprosy in a house of the Land of your possession,¹⁴¹, 14:34. meaning that it is G-d’s punishment upon that house. Thus [the law of leprosy of houses] applies only in the Land which is the inheritance of the Eternal¹⁴² even as He said, When ye are come into the land of Canaan, which I give to you for a possession.¹⁴¹, 14:34. Now the reason [why this law does not apply outside the Land of Israel] is not because it is a duty which attaches to the ground¹⁴³, but the reason is because this matter [of Divine indication of sins] occurs only in the Chosen Land, wherein the Glorious Name dwells. And in the Torath Kohanim the Sages further interpreted¹⁴⁴ 5:3. that a house does not contract impurity until after the conquest and division [of the Land by Israel], and until after each and every individual clearly knows his portion. The reason for this law is that only then do they have the ease of mind to know the Eternal, and the Divine Glory dwells among them. I think similarly with reference to the law of leprosy in garments, that it applies only in the Land [of Israel], it being unnecessary to exclude [the application of this law] in places outside the Land, since they never occur there. For this reason also the law of leprosy in garments applies only to white garments, not to colored ones, because the color might perhaps have extracted this unclean phenomenon [i.e., the leprosy] in that place [in the garment] in a natural way, and it will then not be regarded as a finger of G-d.¹⁴⁵ Therefore garments colored by Heaven can contract impurity, according to the words of Rabbi Shimon.¹⁴⁶ And by way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the reason why it repeats in every verse the expression “the garment, or the skin, or the wrap and the woof,”¹⁴⁷ is because the matter is miraculous. Our Rabbis have interpretations for them [i.e., these repetitions], and all of them are found in the Torath Kohanim.¹⁴⁸

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Further, 14:33-53. ¹⁴¹ Ibid. ¹⁴² II Samuel 20:19. See Vol. I, pp. 250-251, and Ramban further, Leviticus 18:25. ¹⁴¹ Ibid. ¹⁴³ The general rule is: “Any religious duty that does not depend on the Land [but affects personal conduct], must be observed whether in the Land [of Israel] or outside it, and any religious duty that depends on the land, is to be observed in the Land [of Israel] alone, etc.” (Kiddushin 36b-37a). Ramban is now pointing out that the reason why the law of leprosy in houses does not apply outside the Land of Israel is not because it attaches to the land, but for the reason etc. ¹⁴⁴ Torath Kohanim, Metzora ¹⁴⁵ Exodus 8:15. ¹⁴⁶ Negaim 11:3. ¹⁴⁷ See Verses 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59. ¹⁴⁸ Torath Kohanim, Negaim, Chapters 13-16.

FOR IT IS A LEPROSY THAT IS ‘MAM’ERETH’ (FRETTING). “Mam’ereth is an expression of ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier).¹⁴⁹ The Midrashic interpretation is:¹⁵⁰ attach a me’eirah (curse) to it — so that you will have no benefit from it.” This is Rashi’s language. And Onkelos translated: “a leprosy that is mechasra (pricking).” This interpretation he also derived from ‘silon mam’ir’ (a pricking brier),¹⁴⁹ for in Aramaic any shrub which causes a pricking pain is called chisra. Thus: “k’chizra (as a thorn) in a ball of wool;”¹⁵¹ “take thy good-natured advice and throw it over achizri (the hedge).”¹⁵² And the truth of the matter is that mam’ereth is indeed an expression of curse, that it is to say, it is G-d’s curse upon the garment and house, as I have mentioned.¹⁵³ But the Midrash which states that it is forbidden to derive any benefit from it [a leprous garment] is based [not on the word mam’ereth as Rashi had it, but] on the redundancy of expression.¹⁵⁴ appears in Verses 51 and 52 in the same connection. Since one is redundant, it serves as the basis for the Midrashic interpretation mentioned. The same law applies to a leprous house, and it is derived from the verse, And he shall break down the house.¹⁵⁵ Thus also I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi of Tractate Orlah:¹⁵⁶ “If stones were removed from a house affected with leprosy and made into plaster, some Rabbis taught that they become free of their impurity, and some taught that they do not become free of their impurity. Those who said that they become free, are also of the opinion that they may now be used [for some benefit], and those who say that they do not become free are also of the opinion that they are still forbidden [to be made use of], for it is written: it is a leprosy that is ‘mam’ereth’, meaning, attach a curse to it and derive no benefit from it. Rabbi Abohu said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: All things which must be burnt, one may derive benefit from their ashes, except for the ashes of an idol. Rabbi Chiya the son of Yosei asked Rabbi Yochanan: ‘There is the case of the ashes of a house [affected with leprosy], which is not related to idolatry, and yet you say that the ashes thereof are forbidden for any use [like the stones which have been turned into lime or plaster]! Said Rabbi Yochanan to him: ‘This is different,’ since [concerning a house affected with leprosy] it is written that it be ‘broken down.’”¹⁵⁷ (Deuteronomy 12:3), we derive from a similarity of phrases the law that just as it is forbidden to have any benefit from idols, so we are under the same stricture of making any use from the stones of a house which had been affected with leprosy (P’nei Moshe, ibid.). Metzora

footnotes: ¹⁴⁹ Ezekiel 28:24. ¹⁵⁰ Torath Kohanim, Negaim 14:11. ¹⁴⁹ Ezekiel 28:24. ¹⁵¹ Berachoth 8a. ¹⁵² Baba Kama 83a. ¹⁵³ Above, Verse 47. ¹⁵⁴ The expression tzara’ath mam’ereth ¹⁵⁵ Further, 14:45. ¹⁵⁶ Yerushalmi, Orlah III, 3. ¹⁵⁷ And since in the case of the idols it is also written, and ye shall ‘break down’ their altars