[א] "בשביעי" – יכול בין ביום ובין בלילה? ת"ל "ביום" – ולא בלילה. 1) (Vayikra 13:32) ("And the Cohein shall see the plague-spot on the seventh day, and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it, and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin") "on the seventh": I might think either by day or at night (before the seventh day); it is, therefore, written "on the day," and not at night.
[ב] יכול עור הבשר שהוא מטמא בארבע מראות יהא צריך יום, נתקים שאין מטמאים בד' מראות לא יהיו צריכים יום? ת"ל "ביום" – ולא בלילה 2) For I might think that the skin of the flesh, which confers tumah through four "appearances," requires daylight, but nethakim, which do not confer tumah through four appearances, do not require daylight; it must, therefore, be written (also in respect to nethakim) "in the daytime," and not at night.
[ג] "והנה לא פשה הנתק ולא היה בו שער צהוב" – ר' יהודה אומר, אינו אומר "לא הפך בו שיער צהוב" אלא "לא היה בו שיער צהוב" – הא אם קדם את הנתק, טמא. ר' יוחנן בן נורי אומר, אינו אומר "לא היה בו שער שער צהוב דק" אלא "לא היה בו שער צהוב", ואפילו ארוך. "ומראה הנתק אין עמק מן העור" – לא ממשו 3) "and, behold, if the nethek has not spread, and there was no yellow hair in it": R. Yehudah says: It does not say "it (the nethek) did not turn the hair yellow in it," but "and there was no yellow hair in it," which implies that if there was yellow hair there (even) before the (advent of the) nethek, it is tamei. R. Yochanan b. Nuri says: It does not say: "There was no thin yellow hair in it," but "there was no yellow hair in it" — even a long one. "and the appearance of the nethek is not deeper than the skin": (its appearance is the determining factor) and not its (actual) substance.
[ד] "והתגלח" – בכל דבר. לפי שמצאנו שתגלחת האחרונה בכהן, יכול אף זו בכהן? ת"ל "והתגלח" – בכל דבר. 4) (Vayikra 13:33) ("Then he shall be shaved, but the nethek he shall not shave. And the Cohein shall quarantine the nethek a second seven days.") "Then he shall be shaved": by any man (and not necessarily a Cohein). Because we find the last shaving (on the day of his cleansing [Vayikra 14:9] to be by a Cohein, I might think that this, too, must be by a Cohein; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any man.
[ה] "והתגלח" – בכל דבר. לפי שמצאנו שתגלחת האחרונה בתער, יכול אף זו בתער? ת"ל "והתגלח" – בכל דבר. 5) "Then he shall be shaved": by any man. Because we find the last shaving to be by a razor. I might think that this, too, must be by a razor; it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — by any instrument.
[ו] "והתגלח" – אעפ"י שהוא נזיר. לפי שנאמר "תער לא יעבור על ראשו", יכול אעפ"י מנוגע? ת"ל "והתגלח" – אעפ"י נזיר 6) "Then he shall be shaved": even if he is a Nazirite. Because it is written (of a Nazirite, Bamidbar 6:5) "a razor shall not pass over his head," I might think even if he was afflicted (with leprosy); it is, therefore, written "Then he shall be shaved" — even if he was afflicted.
[ז] יכול כשם שתגלחת הנגע דוחה לתגלחת הנזיר בזמן שהוא ודאי כך תהא תגלחת הנזיר דוחה לתגלחת הנתק בזמן שהוא ספק? ת"ל "ואת הנתק לא יגלח" וכי מה יש בו? ואם כן למה נאמר "ואת הנתק לא יגלח"? אלא סמוך לנתק לא יגלח. הא כיצד? מגלח חוצה ומניח שתי שערות סמוך לו כדי שיהא ניכר אם פשה. ומנין לתולש סימני טומאה מתוך נגעו עובר בל"ת? ת"ל ואת הנתק לא יגלח 7) I might think that just as the shaving of the nega overrides the (prohibition against) shaving the Nazirite when it (the nega) is a certainty, so (the mitzvah of) shaving the Nazirite (at the completion of the days of his Naziritism) overrides the prohibition against shaving the nethek when it (the completion of the Nazirite period) is a certainty; it is, therefore, written (of this contingency) "but the nethek he shall not shave." Now what (hair) is there in the nethek that it need be written "but the nethek he shall not shave"? The meaning must be, then: "Around the nethek he shall not shave." How so? He shaves outside of it and leaves (a border of hair) two hairs (thick) around it, so that it will be discernible if the nethek spreads. (And it is this hair border that the verse is referring to.) And whence is it derived that one who tears signs of tumah (yellow hairs) from the midst of his nega transgresses a negative commandment? From "but the nethek (i.e., anything in it) he shall not shave" (i.e., depilate).
[ח] "וכבס בגדיו" – מלטמא משכב ומושב ומלטמא בביאה, "וטהר" – מן הפריעה ומן הפרימה ומן התגלחת ומן הצפרים. "וכבס בגדיו" – וטבל. יכול הרי הוא מסולק? ת"ל ואם פשה יפשה… טמא" 8) "and he shall wash his clothes": not to confer tumah on (his) couch or seat or (on the objects in a house) by entering (it). "and he is clean": He does not require letting his hair grow long, and rending his garments, and shaving his hair, and birds. "and he shall wash his clothes and he shall be clean": I might think that he is thereby "dismissed." It is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 6:35) "And if the nethek shall spread … he is tamei."
[ט] "אחרי טהרתו" – אין לי אלא לאחר הפטור, ומנין אף בסוף שבוע ראשון בסוף שבוע שני? ת"ל יפשה "ואם פשה יפשה" 9) "And if the nethek shall spread … after his cleansing": This tells me of (his status) after his exemption. Whence do I derive that the same applies also at the end of the first week and at the end of the second week? From (the redundant) "spread, spread."
[י] החליטו בשער צהוב והלך שער צהוב וחזר, וכן בפשיון – בתחלה, בסוף שבוע ראשון, בסוף שבוע שני, לאחר הפטור הרי הוא כמו שהיה? לכך נאמר יפשה ואם פשה יפשה. החליטו בפשיון, הלך הפשיון וחזר הפשיון, וכן שער צהוב – בתחלה, בסוף שבוע ראשון, בסוף שבוע שני, לאחר הפטור הרי הוא כמו שהיה? ת"ל יפשה ואם פשה יפשה 10) Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed (as tamei) through yellow hair, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) a spreading in the beginning (before the quarantine), at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if the nethek shall spread." Whence is it derived that if he were confirmed through a spreading, and it left and then returned — and similarly, (through) yellow hair, at the end of the first week, at the end of the second week, and after the exemption — (Whence is it derived) that he reverts to his original status? From "And if spread it shall spread."
[יא] ומנין לשער צהוב החוזר לאחר הפטור? ת"ל "לא יבקר הכהן לשער הצהב טמא הוא" 11) And whence is it derived that yellow hair which returns after the exemption is tamei? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out (the status of) the yellow hair; (he is tamei.")
[יב] ומנין לשער צהוב שיטמא שלא בפשיון? ומנין לפשיון שיטמא שלא בשער צהוב? ת"ל "לא יבקר לשער הצהוב טמא הוא" 12) And whence is it derived that yellow hair confers tumah without a spreading and a spreading confers tumah without yellow hair? From (Bamidbar 6:36) "the Cohein shall not seek out the yellow hair; he is tamei."
[יג] ומנין שאין מסגירין את המוסגר, ואין מחליטין את המוחלט, ואין מסגירין את המוחלט, ואין מחליטין את המוסגר בנתקים? ת"ל "לא יבקר הכהן לשער הצהוב טמא הוא" 13) And whence is it derived that in instances of nethakim a quarantined leper is not to be quarantined (i.e., his quarantine is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be confirmed (i.e., his confirmation is not to be applied to a second nethek), and that a confirmed leper is not to be quarantined, and that a quarantined leper is not to be confirmed? From "the Cohein shall not 'seek out' (by recourse to the above) the yellow hair — he is (already) tamei."
[יד] "ואם בעיניו" – אין לי אלא בעיני עצמו. בעיני בנו, בעיני תלמידו מנין? ת"ל "ואם בעיניו עמד הנתק" "ושער" – מיעוט שער שתי שערות. "שחור" – אין לי אלא שחור. מנין לרבות את הירוק ואת האדום? ת"ל "ושער שחור". "צמח בו" – אע"פ שאין מבוצר בו. אין לי אלא הצומח בסוף והמשואר בתחלה. מנין הצומח בתחלה והמשואר בסוף? ת"ל שער שער ריבה 14) (Vayikra 13:37) ("And if in his eyes the nethek has remained as it was, and black hair has sprouted in it, then the nethek has been healed; he is clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean.") "And if in his eyes": This tells me only of his (the Cohein's) own eyes. Whence do I derive for inclusion the eyes of his son or the eyes of his disciple? From "And if in his eyes" (and not necessarily the Cohein's eyes) the nethek has remained the same. "hair": the minimum of hair — two. "black": This tells me only of black hair. Whence do I derive the same for green or red hair? From "and hair." "sprouted in it": though it not be surrounded within it. This tells me only of (hair) remaining in the beginning (viz. Vayikra 13:31) and sprouting in the end. Whence do I derive the same for sprouting in the beginning and remaining in the end? From the identity (gezeirah shavah) "and hair" (Vayikra 13:31) - "and hair" (Vayikra 13:37).
[טו] ר"ש בן יהודה אומר משום ר"ש כל נתק שטהור שעה אחת אין לו טומאה לעולם. ר"ש אומר כל שער צהוב שטהר שעה אחת אין לו טומאה לעולם 15) "the nethek has been healed": If one had a nethek with yellow hair in it, he is tamei. If black hair arose in it, he is tahor. Even if the black hair leaves it, he remains tahor. R. Shimon says: Any yellow hair which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again. R. Shimon b. Yehudah says in the name of R. Shimon: Any nethek which was rendered tahor for one moment never becomes tamei again.
[טז] "נרפא הנתק" – ולא שניתק נתק בתוך נתק. ר' עקיבא אומר לא טהרתי אלא הרפוי "טהור הוא" – יכול יפטר וילך לו? ת"ל "וטהרו הכהן". אי "וטהרו הכהן" יכול אם אמר כהן על טמא טהור יהא טהור? ת"ל "טהור..וטהרו הכהן". על הדבר הזה עלה הלל מבבל 17) "he is clean": Hillel says: This (R. Shimon's axiom above) does not hold with a nethek which arose within a nethek (after the latter had been declared tahor), it being written "he (is clean") — Only healing effects taharah. "he is clean": I might think he can get up and leave; it is, therefore, written "And the Cohein shall declare him clean." If that (alone were written), I might think that if a Cohein (erroneously) declared one who is tamei to be tahor, he is clean. It is, therefore, written "clean. And the Cohein shall declare him clean." (i.e., the declaration is valid only if he is really clean.) And it is in order to be enlightened on this, that Hillel went up from Bavel (to Eretz Yisrael), to consult Shemayah and Avtalyon.