[א] "איש" – אין לי אלא איש, מנין לרבות את האשה ואת הקטן? ת"ל "צרוע" – בין איש בין אשה בין קטן. אם כן למה נאמר "איש"? לענין של מטה – האיש פורע ופורם ואין האשה פורעת ופורמת 1) (Vayikra 13:44) ("He is a leprous man; he is unclean. The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean; in his head is his plague.") "man": This tells me only of a man. Whence do I derive a woman and a minor for inclusion? From "leprous": both man, woman, and minor. If so, why is it written "man"? In respect to what is stated below (Vayikra 13:45). A man lets his hair grow long and rends his garments, and not a woman.
[ב] "יטמאנו הכהן" – מלמד שטומאתו בכהן. אין לי אלא זה בלבד, מנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים? ת"ל "טמא יטמאנו הכהן" 2) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean": We are hereby taught that his uncleanliness must be declared by a Cohein (If not, he is not tamei.) This tells me only of this (afflicted one) alone. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "The Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."
[ג] או מה זה מיוחד שבראשו נגעו אף אני מרבה את הנתקים שבראשם נגעם… ומנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים ת"ל "טמא יטמאנו הכהן" 3) Or: Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (for "declaration") nethakim (of the previous verses), where the plague-spot is in one's head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion of "declaration") the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "He is unclean; the Cohein shall declare him unclean, unclean."
[ד] יכול שאר הטמאים תהא טומאתם בכהן? ת"ל "הוא". אוציא שאר הטמאים שאין טומאתם מגופם ולא אוציא הזב והזבה שטומאתם מגופם? ת"ל "טמא הוא טמא יטמאנו הכהן" – זה טומאתו בכהן ואין שאר הטמאים טומאתם בכהן 4) I might think that the tumah of the others who are tamei (e.g., those who are tamei with dead-body uncleanliness or with sheretz uncleanliness) would obtain only with the declaration of the Cohein; it is, therefore, written "He (is tamei") (to exclude the others. I would then exclude the others who are tamei, whose tumah does not stem from their bodies, but I would not exclude zav or zavah (those with a genital emission), whose tumah stems from their bodies. It is, therefore, written (the double redundancy) "He (is tamei"); the Cohein shall declare him (unclean, unclean.") The tumah of this one is by (the declaration of) the Cohein, and not the tumah of the others who are tamei.
[ה] "והצרוע" – אף על פי כהן גדול. לפי שנאמר "ראשו לא יפרע ובגדיו לא יפרום" יכול אעפ"י מנוגע? מה אני מקיים "בגדיו יהיו פרומים וראשו יהיה פרוע"? בכל אדם חוץ מכהן גדול… ת"ל "אשר בו הנגע" – אעפ"י כהן גדול 5) (Vayikra 13:45) ("And the leper in which the plague-spot is found, his clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long, and his upper lip shall be covered, and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry.") "And the leper": Even if he is the high-priest. Because it is written (of the high-priest, Vayikra 21:10) "His hair he shall not grow long and his clothes he shall not rend," I might think (that this holds) even if he is afflicted (with leprosy), and how will I satisfy "His clothes shall be rent and his hair shall grow long? With others, aside from the high-priest; it is, therefore, written (the redundant) "in which the plague-spot is found" — even if he be the high-priest.
[ו] "בגדיו יהיו פרומים" – יהיו קרועים. "וראשו יהיה פרוע" – לגדל פרע, דברי ר' אליעזר. ר' עקיבא אומר, נאמר הויה בראש ונאמר הויה בבגדים, מה הויה אמורה בבגדים דברים שהם חוץ מגופו אף הויה האמורה בראש דברים שהם חוץ מגופו 6) "his clothes shall be frumim"; they shall be rent. "and his hair shall be farua": he shall let it grow long. These are the words of R. Eliezer. R. Akiva says: "shall be" is stated in respect to head, and "shall be" is stated in respect to garments. Just as the latter are outside his body, so the former (i.e., hair) is outside his body.
[ז] "ועל שפם יעטה" – חופה ראשו כאבל "וטמא טמא יקרא" – אומר פרוש. אין לי אלא זה בלבד, מנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים? ת"ל "טמא טמא יקרא". 7) "and his upper lip ya'ateh": He covers his head like a mourner. "and 'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry": so that they separate from him. This tells me of this (particular state) alone. Whence do I derive that other afflicted ones (i.e., lepers) are also included? From (the redundant) "'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry."
[ח] או מה זה מיוחד שבראשו נגעו אף אני אביא את הנתקים שבראשו נגעו, ומנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים? ת"ל "וטמא טמא יקרא". ומנין לרבות שאר הטמאים? ת"ל "וטמא טמא יקרא". 8) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in "'Unclean! Unclean!' etc.") nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "'Unclean! Unclean!' he shall cry."
[ט] ארבה אני את הטמאים החמורים ולא ארבה את הטמאים הקלים – טמא מת ובועל נדה וכל המטמאים את האדם מנין? ת"ל "טמא טמא יקרא 9) And whence do I derive for inclusion (in "Unclean!") others (and not only lepers) who are tamei? From (Vayikra 21:44) "He shall declare him unclean" and (Vayikra 21:45) "and 'Unclean,' etc." I would then include only the gravely tamei (such as zavim and zavoth, where the tumah issues from their bodies. Whence would I derive (the same for) the lesser temai'im, such as those who are tamei through a dead body or through cohabitation with a niddah, and all the others? From "He is tamei; he shall declare him unclean," and "and 'Unclean,' etc."
[י] "ימי אשר הנגע בו יטמא" – לא ימים שהיתה בו בהרת ונקצצה. יכול אפילו קצצה במתכוין? ת"ל "כל ימי". מאימתי הוא טהרתן? ר' אליעזר אומר כשיולד לו נגע אחר ויטהר ממנו. וחכ"א עד שתפרח בכולו. 10) (Vayikra 13:46) ("All the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean. He is unclean. Solitary shall he sit. Outside the camp is his dwelling.") "the days that the plague-spot is in him he shall be unclean": Not the days that he had a bahereth (see Vayikra 13 verse 13:2) and it was cut off. I might think (that he is not penalized) even if he cut it off deliberately; it is, therefore, written (in this regard) "all the days." When is he cleansed (of this bahereth)? R. Eliezer says: When a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it. The sages say until it (the plague) blossoms in all of him.
[יא] אמר ר' אלעזר, לא נחלקו ר' אליעזר וחכמים על שקצצה וקצץ עמה בשר חי שאין לו טהרה עולמית, ועל שקצצה ושייר ממנה כל שהוא, אילו פרחה בכולו יהא טהור. ועל מה נחלקו? על שקצצה מובאות: ר' אליעזר אומר כשיולד לו נגע אחר ויטהר ממנו וחכ"א עד שתפרח בכולו 11) R. Elazar said: R. Eliezer and the sages do not differ that if he cut it off and he cut off healthy flesh with it, (desiring to root it out entirely), that there is never any cleansing for him, and that if he cut it off and left over something of it that he is cleansed if it blossoms in all of him. Where do they differ? If he cut it off completely (without cutting off any healthy flesh with it.) R. Eliezer says: (He is cleansed of the bahereth) when a different plague-spot erupts in him and he is cleansed of it, and the sages say: when it blossoms in all of him.
[יב] "בדד ישב" – אין לי אלא זה בלבד, מנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים? ת"ל "טמא בדד ישב". 12) "solitary shall he sit": This tells me only of this one alone. Whence do I derive the same for other afflicted ones? From (the redundant) "He is tamei; solitary shall he sit."
[יג] או מה זה מיוחד שבראשו נגעו אף אני אביא את הנתקים שבראשו נגעו, ומנין לרבות שאר המנוגעים? ת"ל "טמא בדד ישב". יכול יהיו שנים טמאים עמו? ת"ל "הוא בדד ישב" – אין שנים טמאים עמו. 13) But perhaps (I should say:) Just as this one (karachath or gabachath) is distinct in that his plague-spot is in his head, so I include (in sitting solitary) nethakim, where the plague-spot is in his head. Whence do I derive (for inclusion) the other afflicted ones? From "he shall be unclean. He is unclean; solitary shall he sit." I might think that two temai'im [zav and one who is tamei by a dead body] (who are classed with him [viz. Bamidbar 5:2]) may sit with him. It is, therefore, written "solitary shall he sit" — the two (other) temai'im may not sit with him.
[יד] "מחוץ למחנה" – חוץ לשלש מחנות "מושבו" – מושבו טמא. מכאן אמרו: הטמא יושב תחת האילן והטהור עומד – טמא. הטהור יושב תחת האילן והטמא עומד – טהור. ואם ישב – טמא. וכן באבן המנוגעת – טהור, ואם הניחה הרי זה טמא ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר "מחוץ למחנה מושבו והבגד" – לימד על הבגדים שהם טעונים שילוח חוץ לשלש מחנות 14) "outside the camp": outside the three camps (the camp of the Shechinah, the camp of the Levites, and the camp of Israel). "his dwelling": his dwelling (i.e., where he sits or stands [and not where he merely passes through]) is tamei. From here they ruled: If the tamei stood under the tree and the tahor passed by there, he is tamei. If the tahor stood under the tree and the tamei passed by there he is tahor, and if he stood there he is tamei. And thus with a (leprosy-) afflicted stone. (If its carrier passed under the tree, one standing under it is) tahor. And if he placed it down, he is tamei. R. Yossi Haglili says: "Outside the camp is his dwelling. (Bamidbar 5:47) And the garment": We are hereby taught about (leprosy-) afflicted garments that they require "sending" outside the three camps.